HOW THE NATIONAL FOEESTS BEiSTEFIT THE STATE 



A few local figures on county incomes versus national-forest benefits, 

 taken from the tax study of three counties, may be of interest to show 

 present conditions in California : 



Table 1. — Incomes of three counties and national-forest henefits 



Item 



Name of county 



Alpine 



Plumas 



Trinity 



Total area of county acres.. 



Total income, all sources dollars. . 



.\rea national-forest land in county acres.. 



Total income and benefits received by county from Forest Service 



496, 640 



30, 420 



402, 114 



12, 332 



18, 132 



1,583 



18,804 



1, 660, 160 



569, 230 



1, 047, 296 



68, 606 

 234, 579 

 51, 788 



118, 529 



2, 026, 240 



161, 388 



1, 347, 723 



43, 667 

 144, 530 

 33, 109 



120 448 



Area of national-forest land adapted to private ownership acres.. 



Probable tax returns if alienated dollars.. 



Average amount of national-forest funds expended in county annually 



dollars 







Here are three counties, from 60 to 80 per cent covered with national 

 forests that are undoubtedly much better off under present conditions 

 than if the Government land were open to entry. Figures in several 

 other counties show even greater benefits from the presence of the 

 national forests. 



CONCERNING THE PROPOSITION THAT THE STATE IS ENTITLED TO 

 A LARGER SHARE OF THE NATIONAL-FOREST RECEIPTS 



It has been shown that the national forests are now contributing 

 more to the State than could be raised by tax revenue if there were 

 no national forests. On the other hand, the receipts from the national 

 forests of California have never equalled the expenditures for admin- 

 istration and protection. For the fiscal year 1929 the total expendi- 

 tures for the California national forests were $3,526,984 and the re- 

 ceipts were $1,419,140, leaving a deficit of 12,107,844. For the fiscal 

 years 1925 to 1929, inclusive, the total receipts were $6,201,300 and 

 the disbursements $14,752,250— a deficit of $8,550,950. Neither of 

 these two deficits included the 25 per cent refund to the State and 

 counties, which if added would increase the deficits to $2,462,629 and 

 $10,101,275, respectively. 



These figures show that the Federal Government is not making 

 rich direct profits from the national forests. They indicate the extent 

 of the financial obligation which would have to be assumed by another 

 agency if it took over and managed the national-forest areas on the 

 same scale as that now maintained under Federal control. It is not 

 to be expected that the people of the State would be content with 

 less intensive management and development. Handling of these 

 areas in the public interest does not produce net revenue. 



MAJOR BENEFITS OF THE NATIONAL FORESTS 



Protection of national-forest timber resources and management of 

 these resources on a sustained-yield plan insure both a substantial 

 permanent contribution to the timber supply of the country, and a 

 considerable measure of stability to the State's lumber industry and 

 to the communities so vitally dependent thereon. 



Most of the streams supplying domestic water to cities and towns, 

 water for irrigation in farming regions and for hydroelectric develop- 

 ment (in which California stands first among the States), have their 



