tree planting aimed at preventing the ravages 

 of erosion and flooding (41 Stat. 706, 1920); 

 construction of outdoor sanitary facilities at 

 campgrounds (42 Stat. 519, 1922); purchase 

 of denuded or cutover lands so as to manage 

 them for protection of navigable streams (43 

 Stat. 654, 1924); and construction of a dam 

 (44 Stat. 514, 1926). In all of these acts, and 

 in others that could be cited, the permitted 

 uses were designed to further the three pur- 

 poses understood to be established in the Act 

 of 1897, or were at least compatible with 

 them. In none of the appropriation acts can a 

 firm priority listing be found. In a later sec- 

 tion of this paper, however, it will be possible 

 to identify apparent priorities by analyzing 

 budget allocations to each of the forest re- 

 sources. 



The Weeks Act and the 

 Clarke-McNary Act 



The legislation passed in the years follow- 

 ing the Act of 1897 may be viewed as broad- 

 ening the scope of Forest Service responsibil- 

 ity. It did not, however, make significant 

 progress toward defining goals for National 

 Forest System management. The Weeks Act 

 of 191 1 ' 5 was, in part at least, the result of 

 the growing awareness that sound forest man- 

 agement should be applied to forested areas in 

 the East as well as to the public lands of the 

 West. The Weeks Act provided for the pur- 

 chase or acquisition of "forested, cut-over, or 

 denuded lands within the watersheds of navi- 

 gable streams" for the "purpose of conserving 

 the forests and the water supply" as may be 

 "necessary to the regulation of the flow of 

 navigable streams or for the production of 

 timber . . . ." Before any such lands could be 

 actually purchased it had to be shown that 

 "the control . . . [would] promote the pro- 

 duction of timber thereon." The act also pro- 

 vided for an annual $200,000 matching fund 

 to be used in cooperation with the various 

 States for the "protection from fire of the for- 

 ested watershed of navigable streams." Some 

 26 million acres of land were acquired under 

 the provisions of the act. 



35 Act of March 1, 1911, 36 Stat. 961-963; as 

 amended by various subsequent legislation — 16 

 U.S.C. 480, 500, 513-519, 521, 552, and 563. 



The Weeks Act thus stipulates two major 

 priorities — protection of the watershed of 

 navigable rivers and timber production. For 

 two reasons, however, the act did not help to 

 establish goals and priorities on the National 

 Forest level. First, the provisions of the act do 

 not apply to the management or creation of 

 National Forests in other areas. Second, the 

 act as amended stipulates that (with some ex- 

 ceptions) the "lands acquired under this act 

 shall be permanently reserved, held, and ad- 

 ministered as National Forest lands under the 

 provisions of . . . [the 1891 Act and subse- 

 quent supplemental, and amendatory legisla- 

 tion]." Thus they were to be managed and 

 administered, as opposed to being established, 

 under the same policies as all other National 

 Forests. 



The Clarke-McNary Act of 1924 36 was, ac- 

 cording to Gates (1968, p~~596), at least in 

 part the result of "two sharply defined the- 

 ories of the role of the Federal government in 

 forest management and protection." 



On the one hand there were those who 

 might be called the "traditional conserva- 

 tionists" in the mold of Pinchot,_ who felt that 

 drastic action should be taken to prevent fur- 

 ther depredation of the forests from fire, 

 disease, and insects. They also supported legis- 

 lation requiring that private lumbermen fob 

 low the scientific practices used on the Na- 

 tional Forests. To this group, it would appear, 

 establishment of the right of government in- 

 tervention was a significant goal in itself. Hav- 

 ing witnessed the destruction of the European 

 forests, these men sought to protect the for- 

 ested lands in America through government 

 control. 



On the other hand was a group of younger 

 foresters, led by William B. Greeley, who be- 

 came Chief Forester in 1920. This group f elt 

 that although action was needed, it should be 

 based on mutual cooperation between the 

 Forest Service, the States, and the private for- 

 esters. Both groups influenced the ensuing leg- 

 islation, and a slight change in attitude is de- 

 tectable when the wording of the Weeks Act 

 is compared with that of the Clarke-McNary 



36 Act of June 7, 1924, 43 Stat. 653; as amended 

 16 U.S.C. 471, 505, 515, 564, 565, 565a, 566a-b, 

 567, 568, 568a, 569, and 570. 



22 



