vation administration. The chapter will conclude with a description of some recent experimentation with agencies organized for the primary purpose of planning the use of the State resources. This planning agency, which is typified by the New York Commission on Housing and Regional Planning (1923-26) and the Wisconsin Regional Planning organization (1929 onward), differs from the conservation agencies by (a) the freedom from administrative responsibility for the day-to-day management of resources and (b) the comprehensive scope of its activities, theoretically including all the resources of the State. The New York and Wisconsin experiments have been definitely recognized as clear prototypes of the State planning organizations that were established in the period starting in December 1933.

The technique of comprehensive planning of resources has developed out of a background consisting of trends in (a) the management of specific resources (as traced in part II), (b) the multiple-use management of related resources by the conservation agencies, and (c) agencies organized for the primary purpose planning all the resources of the State.

of

The chapter is divided into sections on (1) Origin of the Technique of Multiple-Use and Comprehensive Planning of Resources, (2) Origin and Growth of the State Conservation Agencies, and (3) Agencies Organized for the Primary Purpose of Planning.

Origin of the Technique of Multiple-Use and Comprehensive Planning of Resources.-The technique of the multiple-use and compre hensive planning of resources was brilliantly and daringly formulated by a series of special commissions appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt during the last years of his administration." These Commissions were the Inland Waterways Commission (1907), the National Conservation Commission (1908-9), and the Country Life Commission (1908-9). In addition, there were the Conference of Governors called in May 1908, the Joint Conserva tion Conference of National and State officials (December 1908), the North American Conservation Conference (1909), and a series of unofficial conserva tion congresses (1909-11, 1913, 1916), at which the theory and practice of conservation was discussed (with increasing heat).

The immediate occasion for the appointment of a special investigating com mission on inland waterways was the failure of the railroads to handle traffic expeditiously, particularly the shipment of agricultural products in the Mississippi Valley, which had led to the request of a Presidential survey by several commercial organizations. On March 14, 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt requested nine men to serve on an Inland Waterways Commission to "prepare and report a comprehensive plan for the improvement and control of the river systems of the United States. The Chairman was Theodore E. Burton, and other members of the Commission included Senators Francis Newlands and William Warner, the Honorable John H. Bankhead and H. K. Smith, General Alexander MacKenzie of the War Department and Messrs. Gifford Pinchot, W. J. McGee, and W. F. Newell of the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior.

The Commission liberally construed its mandate to "prepare and report a comprehensive plan for the improvement and control of the river systems" by not confining the inquiry to the ways and means of providing river transport, as the immediate occasion might have easily prompted, but by boldly pro posing to explore and develop the potentialities of a new and challenging way

Already as governor of New York, Theodore Roosevelt had been interested in conservation. His first message to Congress in 1901 outlined the vital needs of forest, game, and water conservation. His subsequent messages added the land problem and the revision of the homestead laws (1902), river development (1905), minerals (1907), and national parks (1908). In his 1907 message he stated that conservation was a fundamental problem "that can be handled only through a well conceived plan." See National Edition of Roosevelt's Works, XV, pp. 102-09, 161-62, 314-16, 443-52, 525. All his messages have been examined, but these references are to his original statements rather than reiterations of earlier positions.

of looking at the national resources- as an interrelated whole. The most effective use of the resources of a watershed depended upon bringing together the plans for navigation, water purification, power development, control of floods, forest growth, and soil protection into a program of coordinated river development.

As its activities progressed the Commission became strikingly impressed with the manifold ways in which water problems cut across State and depart mental lines. The conviction grew that perhaps much of the difficulty besetting actualities of comprehensive river planning might be smoothed out through a Nation-wide conference of Federal and State officials for the exchange of points of view and experience, and it so recommended in a letter to the President on October 3, 1907.

In his formal invitation to the Governors of the States on November 13, President Roosevelt wrote:

The gravity of the situation must, I believe, appeal with special force to the Governors of the States, because of their close relations to the people and the responsibility for the welfare of their communities.

All but 11 Governors, Members of the Supreme Court and Congress, and 3 special guests (William Jennings Bryan, Andrew Carnegie, and John Mitchell), were in personal attendance at the conference when it convened in Washington, May 13-15, 1908, to listen to the welcoming address of the President of the United States. Despite its common-sense obviousness, this was the first time in American history that any President had actually proposed to confer with the chief executives of the States of the Unior. upon some common problem confronting the Nation and the States. In this case, it was the imminent prob lem of the conservation of resources.

The Governors were reminded how the historic conference of State representatives at Annapolis in 1786, meeting in Philadelphia the following year, had been "in its original conception merely a waterways conference, but when they had closed their deliberation the outcome was the Constitution which made the States into a Nation." The President hurried to add that although the problem of the conservation of our natural resources was "the gravest problem of today," it was

but part of another and greater problem to which this Nation is not yet awake, but to which it will awake in time and with which it must hereafter grapple if it is to live-the problem of national efficiency, the patriotic duty of insuring the safety and continuance of the Nation.

The necessity of a "coherent plan" arose out of the fact that all these various uses of our natural resources are so closely connected that uncoordinated treatment of them in "haphazard and piecemeal fashion" brought only further waste. Secretary Elihu Root hailed the occasion as "marking a new departure, the beginning of an era in which the States of the Union will exercise their reserved sovereign powers upon a higher plane." This dramatic assembling of the Governors of the States in the National Capital thus served to usher in upon the focus of Nation-wide attention the problems of conservation and, incidentally, to create the annual device of a governors' conference.

Within a month after the adjournment of the governors' conference, President Roosevelt appointed, on June 8, 1908, a National Conservation Commission under the chairmanship of Gifford Pinchot, with a total membership of 48,

The absent States were California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oklahoma Oregon, and Tennessee. 7 But no doubt could be entertained as to the overshadowing dominance of the President, which led many to charge that the device of a house of governors was a "scheme further to thwart the will of Congress." Ibid., p. 56.

Subsequent sessions of the governors' conference touched on the conservation question in 1909-10, 1922, 1924, and 1931, but at no meeting, with the possible exception of the 1909 session, did conservation attract such vast attention. The device of annual governors' conferences has not notably borne out the original aspirations. Cf. W. B. Graves, Uniform State Action (1934), c. V.

†163104 0-39--7

including Senators and Congressmen, civil servants, and distinguished citizens. In its organization, the new Commission singled out water, forests, land, and minerals for particular investigation by dividing itself into corresponding sections with a secretary at the head, drawn from the civil service. After collecting a mass of data which in scattered form was already available in the various Federal Departments and independent establishments, the Commission reported in February 1909.

In transmitting this report to the Congress, President Roosevelt characterized it as "one of the most fundamentally important documents ever laid before the American people. It contains the first inventory of its natural resources ever made by a nation." The report of the Commission, along with its "accompany ing papers" in two volumes, 10 was designed to lay "irrefutable proof" before the Nation that conservation was the fundamental question of the day. Conserva tion was not a question in a partisan sense, the President made clear, but one upon which "men of all parties and all shades of opinion may be united for the common good." Coordinated waterways development was again recommended to the Nation, to which were added forest protection (and tax revision) and mineral and land conservation.

In the report itself the Commission noted three stages in the development of conservation practices by the Government: (1) "Individual enterprise for per sonal and family benefit" which "led to the conquest of the wilderness"; (2) "collective enterprise, either for the benefit of communities or for the profit of individuals" which led "too often to the growth of great monopolies"; and (3) collective and largely cooperative enterprise "directed toward the larger benefits of communities, States, and the people generally." In passing through these stages, resources "received little thought" in the first, "were wastefully used" in the second, while "in the stage which we are entering wise and beneficial uses are essential, and the checking of waste is absolutely demanded." 11

Waste of resources, according to the Commission, was twofold in character, misuse or nonuse. "The most reprehensible waste is that of destruction, as in forest fires, uncontrolled flow of gas and oil, soil wash, and abandonment of coal in the mines." In order to prevent waste there must be both "increase and diffusion of knowledge, from which is sure to result an aroused public sentiment demanding prevention." While the Divisions of the Commission were confined to the natural resources of water, forests, land, and minerals, it is clear that the members were not unmindful of the human resources. Thus the report pointed

out:

Personnel of the National Conservation Commission.-The Water Section consisted of Theodore E. Burton, Ohio, Chairman; Francis G. Newlands, Nevada; Jonathan P. Dolliver, Iowa; William Warner, Missouri; John H. Bankhead, Alabama; W. J. McGee, Bureau of Soils, Secretary; Gifford Pinchot, Forest Service; Herbert Knox Smith, Bureau of Corporations; Joseph E. Ransdell, Louisiana; G. F. Swain, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; W. L. Marshall, brigadier general, U. S. Army, Chief of Engineers; F. H. Newell, Reclamation Service. The Forest Section consisted of Reed Smoot, Utah, Chairman; Albert J. Beveridge, Indiana; Charles F. Scott, Kansas; Champ Clark, Missouri; J. B. White, Missouri; Henry S. Graves, Yale Forest School; William Irvine, Wisconsin; Newton C. Blanchard, Louisiana; Charles L. Pack, New Jersey; Irving Fisher, Connecticut; Gustav H. Schwab, New York; Overton W. Price, Forest Service, Secretary. The Lands Section consisted of Knute Nelson, Minnesota, Chairman; Francis E. Warren, Wyoming; Swagar Sherley, Kentucky; Herbert Parsons, New York; N. D. Broward, Florida; James J. Hill, Minnesota; George C. Pardee, California; Charles MacDonald, New York; Murdo Mackenzie, Colorado; T. C. Chamberlin, University of Chicago; Frank C. Goudy, Colo rado; George W. Woodruff, Interior Department, Secretary. The Minerals Section consisted of John Daizell, Pennsylvania, Chairman; Joseph M. Dixon, Montana; Frank P. Flint, California; Lee S. Overman, North Carolina; Philo Hall, South Dakota; James L. Slayden, Texas; Andrew Carnegie, New York; Charles R. Van Hise, Wisconsin; John Mitchell, Illinois; John Hayes Hammond, Massachusetts; I. C. White, West Virginia; J. A. Holmes, Geological Survey, Secretary. The Executive Committee: Gifford Pinchot, Chairman; Theodore E. Burton; Reed Smoot; Knute Nelson; John Dalzell; Joseph A. Holmes; W. J. McGee; Overton W. Price; G. W. Woodruff; Secretary of the Commission, Thomas R. Shipp (elected by the executive committee). National Conservation Commission, 60th Cong., 2d sess., S. Doc. 676, I, pp. 116-117.

10 The two volumes of appendices discussed Future Estimated population [continued increase!), rainfall distribution, water transportation, growth of internal and foreign commerce, irrigation, underground waters, floods, land, minerals, national vitality, etc.

11 Cf. McGee's statement at the 1909 session of the National Conservation Congress: "When the Federal Constitution was formed, land alone was recognized as a resource and as a basis of national existence. Not until within the last century were minerals so recognized, and even yet they are imperfectly dissevered from the soil above them. Not until within a generation were forests regarded as a resource to be treated separately from the soil, and even yet they are not generally sepa rated in taxation. Not until within a decade were the waters recognized as a resource to be developed and conserved in the interest of the people. And in only a few centers is human life recognized even today as a factor in the welfare of the State." Proceedings, p. 99.

Even as we have neglected our natural resources, so we have been thoughtless of life and health. Too long have we overlooked that grandest of our resources, human life. Natural resources are of no avail without men and women to develop them, and only a strong and sound citizenship can make a nation permanently great. We cannot too soon enter on the duty of conserving our chief source of strength by the prevention of disease and the prolongation of life.

More complete inventories of resources were necessary than those presented in the three-volume report of the Commission. Without the active cooperation of the States and Nation little permanent achievement would be likely to result. Therefore there should be established a permanent "organization through which all agencies-State, National, municipal, associate, and individual-may unite in a common effort to conserve the foundations of our prosperity."

Precisely to provide the foundation of such cooperative effort and to acquaint the public with the findings of the National Conservation Commission, a call was issued toward the end of 1908 for a Joint Conservation Conference, to be held in Washington, December 8-10, 1908. Conservation agencies of 26 States were represented, 18 Governors were there in person, and 10 others by representatives. While thus fewer Governors attended than at the May conference, which was to be expected in view of the fact that the earlier meeting was specif ically a Governors conference, it is interesting to note that 8 out of the 11 States which had failed to send their Governors or representatives to the spring meeting now found it advisable to be represented.12

In expounding the concept of the "comprehensive plan," President Theodore Roosevelt realistically warned his audience that acting on that principle was ‘a great deal harder" than applauding it because—

66

The special interests include not merely and not principally interests of special individuals but interests of special localities; and any one of you who do not know what it is to try to get through a scheme for the general good that seems not to pay heed to the interests of a special locality have an eye-opening experience before you; and that whether you are engaged in trying to improve the right rivers without wasting your money in improving unnavigable creeks, or whether you are trying to get proper navy yards properly supported instead of having money wasted on navy yards which have the one defect of being wholly useless. * * *If you dissipate the improve ments throughout the country on the ground that each congressional district shall have its share, you had better abandon the project from the beginning. I want you to have a comprehensive plan formulated by a national commission, because I want to see that plan genuinely national in scope: The conference adopted resolutions endorsing the work of the National Conservation Commission and advocating the practice of the principle of the interrelated uses of water, the protection of human life and health, and the creation and continuance of State conservation commissions.

The President went on to prove his assertion that the United States was taking "the lead among the nations of the world" by calling a North American Conser vation Conference which convened the following February, with delegates from Canada, Mexico, and Newfoundland. It, in turn, recommended the calling of a world conservation conference at The Hague, but this came to naught with Roosevelt's retirement from the Presidency and departure on his African adventure.

In a letter to Prof. L. H. Bailey of the New York Agricultural College, on August 10, 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt called attention to the fact that

13 Governors of Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, and South Carolina. Special representatives of California, Colorado, Maine, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, Wis consin, and Wyoming.

State conservation commissions of Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia; and forestry agencies of Michigan and Ohio; the waterways com mission of Missouri; and a proposed agency of Kentucky.

On the other hand, four States (Idaho, North Carolina, Vermont, and Washington) which had been represented at the Governors' Conference failed to send any representative whatever. The three States failing to respond to either conference were Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Iowa. The special guest was Andrew Carnegie; Social and Political Science Academy sent Profs. Emory Johnson and M. Lindsay.

the "social and economic institutions of the open country are not keeping pace with the development of the Nation as a whole" and requested the services of Professor Bailey as chairman of a proposed Country Life Commission to inquire into the "main deficiencies of rural life." Other members of the Commission included Henry Wallace (of Wallace's Farmer), K. L. Butterfield (president of the Massachusetts Agricultural College at Amherst), Gifford Pinchot, Walter H. Page (editor of World's Work), C. S. Barrett (of Georgia) and William A. Beard (of California).

The Commission conducted hearings at 30 different places, engaged in exten sive correspondence and sent out more than half a million questionnaires, of which 115,000 were returned. Following a special suggestion of the President, local meetings were held in schoolhouses in most States. The States of Nebraska and Missouri officially designated special days for country-life discussions, and the four States of Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Idaho held a regional meeting.

The rural problem was analyzed in terms of the lack of knowledge, training, and leadership, handicaps imposed by the established business systems, lack of highway facilities, continuing and widespread depletion of the soils, absence of agricultural credit, inadequate supervision of public health, shortage of labor, and the burdens borne by the farm women. A "square deal" was proposed for rural society, including nationalization of extension work, the provision of edu cation and highways under the "expert supervision and direction" of a "national plan" of Federal aid, and a general program of "social cohesion. Basically, the Commission stated, "The great rural interests are human interests, and good crops are of little value to the farmer unless they open the door to a good kind of life on the farm." 13

The origin of the technique of multiple-use and comprehensive planning of resources was thus national in character; but the political drama of the conser vation battle over who was to control the use of resources completely overshadowed in the national scene the technical problem of how to bring about the most effective use of resources. 14 The States, on the other hand, as will be shown in the following section, were able to a limited extent to incorporate the technique of multiple-use management of resources into the framework of State government, at least insofar as natural resources are concerned. Moreover in the very recent period, as shown in the concluding section of this chapter, some of the States began to experiment with the organization of agencies for the pri mary purpose of comprehensive planning.

State Conservation Agencies, Origin and Growth.-At its spring meeting at the White House in 1908, the Governors' Conference had declared its "firm conviction" that the conservation problem was of such "transcendent importance," that it should receive "unremittingly the attention of the Nation, the States, and the people in earnest cooperation. It was recommended to the States that they appoint a "commission on the conservation of natural resources, to cooperate with each other and with any similar commission of the Federal Government.

When there was occasion to reassemble in Washington half a year later, in December, as a Joint Conservation Conference, 23 States reported representa tives of an agency described as the "State conservation commission," of more or

13 The device of national country life conferences did not appear till after the World War, the first being held in 1919. The title of the 1934 conference was "National Planning and Rural Life."

14 See Gifford Pinchot, The Fight for Conservation (1910). Congress passed the Tawney amendment (35 Stat. 1027) which forbade the use of special commissions unless authorized by law. As a result President Taft ordered the dis memberment of the National Conservation Commission. For the subsequent conservation battle, see R. M. Stahl, The Ballinger-Pinchot Controversy (1926). On the other hand, the Federal Government passed a considerable number of specific conservation statutes, authorizing presidential withdrawal of land from entry (36 Stat. 847), providing for lease of waterpower sites (36 Stat, 593) and mineral lands (38 Stat. 741 and 41 Stat. 438), and granting Federal aid for State forestry (36 Stat. 961), agricultural extension (38 Stat. 372), and highways (39 Stat. 355).