376. DIFFERENT RESOURCES CALL FOR DIFFERENT TREATMENT.—A wise conservation policy will take note of the fact that different resources call for different types of treatment. Coal, petroleum, oil, and gas are limited in extent and are practically irreplaceable. These should be taken from the earth and utilized as economically as possible. The same is true of the metallic minerals, such as iron and copper, though here the use of substitutes is of greater importance than in the case of non-metallic minerals.
Water can best be conserved by the wise development of water power sites, and by the careful utilization of streams.
Forests may be renewed, but slowly. Their conservation requires the prevention of fires, the reduction of waste in cutting and milling, the use of by-products, and scientific reforestation.
Soil elements may also be renewed, though slowly and with difficulty.
Reforestation prevents erosion and thus conserves soil fertility.
Systems of crop rotation designed to retain nitrogen, potassium, and
phosphorus are valuable.
377. SOME CONSERVATION NEEDS.—The above considerations indicate some of our conservation needs. It is believed by most students of conservation that the Federal forest holdings should be extended and consolidated. There is need for more stringent forest fire regulations, especially in the case of private forests. In order to reforest the denuded areas and to grow timber scientifically some such plan as the German system of forest culture might be adopted. There is urgent need of a systematic development of our inland Waterways. The construction of more dams and reservoirs, the dredging of rivers and harbors, the co÷rdination of canals and inland waterways, and the improvement of the Mississippi-Great Lakes system, all these would be helpful measures. Irrigation and other reclamation projects, including the drainage of swamp lands, should be developed systematically. American farming methods ought still further to be improved. We are in need of laws penalizing wasteful methods of mining and prohibiting uneconomical methods of combustion. Probably the system of leasing rather than selling mineral lands should be extended.
A last vital need in conservation is co÷peration between state and Federal authorities, and between private individuals and public agencies. This is of great importance. Where rivers course through several states, and where forest fires in one section threaten adjacent forest areas, co÷peration must be secured. The Governors' Conference of 1908 stimulated co÷peration between the states and the Federal government, and since 1909 the National Conservation Association has been a means of co÷rdinating the work of all persons and agencies interested in conservation. There is still, however, little co÷peration between state or Federal governments on the one hand, and private owners on the other. It is a matter of special regret that although four fifths of our forests are privately owned, both fire prevention and scientific forestry are little developed on private estates.
378. THE QUESTION OF ADMINISTRATION.—Though it is conceded on all sides that our natural resources ought to be utilized economically, there is much discussion as to whether the states or the Federal government ought to dominate the conservation movement.
Those favoring the extension of Federal control over conservation point out that forest control, irrigation, conservation of water power, and similar projects are distinctly interstate in character, and are thus properly a Federal function. Federal administration is said to be necessary in order to insure fair treatment of different localities. Finally, it is maintained, the states have either neglected the question of conservation, or have handled it in their own interests rather than with regard to the national welfare.
A strong party maintains, on the other hand, that conservation is primarily a state function. The movement is said to be too large for the Federal government to handle. It is contended that there is no specific warrant in the Constitution for the Federal control of conservation. It is also claimed that Federal administration of natural resources has been accompanied by waste and inefficiency. Conservation is said to be a local question, best administered by those most interested in the problem, and, by reason of their proximity to it, most familiar with it.
The problem of administration is a difficult one. In a number of cases the claims for and against Federal control are obviously sound. But from the standpoint of the public the whole matter is of secondary importance: the problem of administration ought to be decided on the basis of what is best under particular circumstances. Some phases of conservation are probably best looked after by the states, others by the Federal government, still others by the state and Federal governments jointly. The problem of conflicting authority ought somehow to be solved. Conservation is too vital a matter to be hampered by the question of method or means.