558 MISC. PUBLICATIQN 218, U. 8S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
light rainfall. ‘The Government performs a proper function in seeing 
to it that a thrifty forest or other suitable vegetative cover is main- 
tained for this purpose. To this end the Government may have to 
regulate the use of private land, in return for which appropriate com- 
pensation may be due the owner. Such compensation is not to be 
recarded as a special concession. It is a proper compensation for a 
service rendered to the State by the forest owner. But it should be 
made by means of a direct payment as reimbursement for damages 
rather than by means of a reduction in taxation. There is no possible 
way, under a general statute, to make the tax concession agree with 
the amount of the damages due to any particular owner. Under 
such a procedure, some would receive too great a reward, others too 
little. Moreover the method of direct payments has the advantage 
that the payments are out in the open, they have to be authorized 
by the legislature, their amount is known, and it is possible to deter- 
mine whether the public advantage acquired i is worth the cost. All 
this is likely to be concealed under the plan of tax concessions. 
Special tax concessions in behalf of forestry are therefore not recom- 
mended. This point might perhaps warrant further elaboration were 
it not for the fact that in any case little aid toward the solution of the 
forest-tax problem is to be looked for from this direction. It is sig- 
nificant that, of the many States which have sought to promote for- 
estry by special-tax favors, none has accomplished any result of 
importance. It is recommended that, wnatever may be the solution 
of the problem of forest taxation, it should involve a tax contribu- 
tion from forest owners substantially on a par with that of other 
taxable interests. 
SEPARATION OF LAND AND TIMBER VALUE 
A number of the plans for changing the tax system with special 
relation to forests, which will be considered later, as well as the special 
forest-tax laws now in effect in several States, require that forest 
properties be assessed separately for land and timber. There is 
obviously need for a precise definition of what is ordinarily meant 
by the land value of a forest property for use both in connection with 
a theoretical study of forest-tax plans involving separate valuation 
of the land element and in the formulation of forest-tax laws. 
It appears that the most useful concept of land value is that value 
which would remain in a forest property if the forest were replaced 
with cut-over land such as would result from cutting the merchantable 
timber from a forest similar to that under consideration as to site and 
species, but composed entirely of a mature, even-aged stand. It is 
assumed that if there are any recreational or scenic values, they will 
be included in full with the land value even though they would be 
impaired by the hypothetical cutting. It is understood that if the 
land derives its value from some prospective nonforest use, a reason- 
able discount is taken from the cut-over land value to allow for what- 
ever time may be required for the economical removal of the forest 
cover. 
The above method of analyzing forest value into timber and land 
value is generally familiar to assessors and appraisers in the forest 
regions of this country. In the case of relatively unproductive or 
inaccessible lands, the value of cut-over land is often a nominal amount 
based on the general advantages of land ownership rather than on 
