64 BULLETIN" 149 7, IT. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
planting would be distributed over 5 or 10 State forests so that there 
would be not more than 1,200 to 2.500 acres a year to be planted 
on each forest, an area that can be handled with local labor in any 
part of the State. 
One of the chief obstacles to the expansion of planting programs 
by State or other public agencies is the difficulty in obtaining appro- 
priations sufficiently large to finance the work. The annual planting 
of only 12,500 acres of State land in one State as just suggested would 
cost about $100,000 a year. If the State undertakes to assist counties, 
local communities, and private owners in reforestation, two or three 
times that amount would be needed. 
The possibility of reduction or discontinuance of annual or bien- 
nial appropriations by legislatures 1 becomes a serious matter in plan- 
ning and carrying out reforestation policies over long periods of 
years. Other methods of financing reforestation are, therefore, 
highly desirable. Some of the Eastern States have issued long-term 
bonds for forest acquisition and development. This method provides 
funds to initiate the work on a large scale, the revenue from the 
forest crops being expected to go far toward paying off the bonds 
when they mature. 
Another plan to finance a State reforestation policy that has been 
suggested assumes that reforestation is essential for the public wel- 
fare and that, therefore, a tax levy of a fraction of a mill on the 
assessed valuation of the entire State is justified. Wisconsin has 
passed a constitutional amendment authorizing such a tax levy for 
the handling and acquisition of State forest land. While it may 
not be easy to have the necessary constitutional amendment passed, 
this method of financing a reforestation policy assures permanent 
and adequate funds to carry out the policy and, therefore, has much 
to recommend it. 
STATE AID FOR LOCAL COMMUNITIES 
Since the States can not hope to provide for the planting of all 
the idle lands directly, they should adopt measures to encourage 
planting by other agencies. The local communities, counties, cities, 
and towns are in a position to benefit particularly from the growing 
of their own timber crops. They are able to borrow money at low 
rates of interest for long periods of time, and land owned by them 
is not subject to taxation. Community forests not only provide a 
highly profitable investment but may serve several other purposes. 
They protect the watersheds of cities which operate their own water 
systems; they furnish readily accessible timber crops for community 
use or sale; and they have high intangible values as park and rec- 
reation grounds. Therefore, the communities in forest sections 
should be encouraged by State aid and otherwise to undertake the 
planting of idle lands in their localities. In European countries, 
communal forests are among the most valuable assets and profitable 
investments of the local communities. 
Under a plan of this kind, counties and towns would take title 
to the land. It might be necessary to purchase some of it to make 
up suitable blocks. In Wisconsin, tax-title lands revert to the coun- 
ties and would be available for this purpose. The State could take 
action in several ways. If necessary, legal permission should be 
