1940: Conservation

In 1940 the pattern of conservation became confused, and in some respects it was definitely chaotic. Only too obvious were the miscellaneous and haphazard origins of many conservational measures. Some, notably in the fields of forestry, soil conservation, and wildlife, had evolved from well conceived plans; but others had sprung somewhat prematurely from emergencies. The general depression, the drought of 1930-1936 in the Great Plains and Prairies, crises in specific crops — chiefly in the form of surpluses and restricted foreign markets, the floods of 1936 and 1937, the hurricane of 1938 — these and other events of the thwarted thirties called forth concrete but uncoordinated legislation, which functioned with varying degrees of success and failure in the name of conservation.

Reorganization of Government Bureaus.

Conservation as a variety show proved vulnerable to political attack, and in 1938 a vigorous battle was fought in Congress over that portion of the Reorganization Bill which called for the creation of a Department of Conservation by performing a minor operation on the present Department of the Interior. The bill passed the Senate, but before it came to a vote in the House, few Representatives retained any doubt regarding the distrust which was, and is, widely felt in the ability of the Department of the Interior to formulate or to administer a program of conservation. So vociferous were the friends of conservation that the Reorganization Bill was decisively defeated in the House.

Reorganization of government departments was not a dead issue, but has proceeded during 1939 and 1940 under a reorganization act, passed April 3, 1939, which empowered the President to shift and realign government bureaus and agencies by executive order until Jan. 21, 1941. The President issued Reorganization Orders numbers 1 and 2 in April and May 1939; numbers 3 and 4 in March and April 1940. In these orders conservational activities were more seriously affected than any other governmental function, as an outline of their provisions will quickly reveal:

(1) The first Reorganization order placed the independent Civilian Conservation Corps under the administration of the newly created Federal Security Agency; and the independent Natural Resources Committee was attached to the President's Office as the Natural Resources Planning Board.

(2) The second order transferred the Bureau of Biological Survey from the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Fisheries from the Department of Commerce to the Department of the Interior.

(3) The third order provided merely for a merger of the Bureaus of Fisheries and Biological Survey, and for a change of name to Fish and Wildlife Service.

(4) Order number four assigned to the Department of the Interior all activities of the Soil Conservation Service pertaining to soil and water conservation on lands under that department's jurisdiction — approximately 225,000,000 acres, chiefly in the Indian reservations and unreserved public domain.

Rumors that the Forest Service was destined to go to the Department of the Interior were widely circulated early in 1940. Whether the rumors were unfounded, or whether the President yielded to the deluge of protests which followed his conference with the Secretary of the Interior and several Congressmen on Feb. 7, is not known. But it is reported reliably that the Department of the Interior made a strenuous effort to acquire the Forest Service and to achieve in this way the end which featured prominently in the Reorganization Bill of 1938, and which led to the latter's defeat. (See also FORESTRY.)

Reorganization has thus left the conservational functions of the Federal government even more muddled than they were. The need for unification and coordination is only too obvious, but public reaction demonstrated the widespread conviction that the Department of the Interior cannot, or will not, effectively implement conservational measures — that, like Shakespeare's rose, it will not be altered by a change of name.

Wildlife.

As for the year's tangible achievements in the field of conservation, wildlife seems to have made the greatest gains. And oddly enough, among the forms of wildlife, the beaver has exerted a remarkable coordinating influence among diverse governmental agencies concerned with conservation. State game departments in several western commonwealths are cooperating with the Forest Service, the Bureau of Biological Survey (now the Fish and Wildlife Service), and the Division of Grazing in the Department of the Interior in an effort to re-establish and to transplant the beaver in upstream districts. For it has gradually been appreciated that these industrious engineers not only impound water, but aid materially in retarding run-off and minimizing floods, in raising local water-tables, in restoring forests, in creating natural sanctuaries for birds, fish, and other types of wildlife. 'No other land animal has changed the surface of the earth as much as the beaver. Probably no other creature has played so large a part in conserving water and soil and forest. . . . From ocean to ocean . . . the beaver has been checking erosion . . . holding back flood waters . . . building up meadows . . . (checking) forest fires and (saving) untold millions of acres of virgin forest.' (W. T. Cox.)

The effectiveness of the work performed in recent years by the Bureau of Biological Survey and cooperating agencies, including game associations and nature, was demonstrated in a report released by the Fish and Wildlife Service shortly after it took over the functions of the Bureau of Fisheries and the Biological Survey in June 1940. The leaflet is a census of migratory game birds, and it reveals that, in 1940, there were approximately 65,000,000 wild ducks and geese on the North American continent — two and one-half times the estimate for 1935. To vigilance in the enforcement of game laws have been added educational programs, as well as the development and improvement of sanctuaries and breeding grounds; and the beneficent results are evident in the 1940 census of migratory fowl.

Protection of Wildlife in Western Hemisphere.

The year's outstanding event in conservational progress was unquestionably the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere. This pact, signed and ratified by Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, Cuba, El Salvador, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic and the United States, becomes effective Jan. 12, 1941. In it the signatory nations agree to cooperate in protecting and preserving the native fauna and flora of the American continents, together with 'scenery of extraordinary beauty, unusual and striking geologic formations, regions and natural objects of aesthetic, historic, or scientific value.' Although somewhat idyllic in phraseology, the Convention represents a practical effort to expand conservational principles which have been painfully evolved in the United States, so as to protect and preserve wildlife and scenery in both South and North America. Protected areas will include National Parks, National Reserves, Nature Monuments, and Strict Wilderness Reserves; and the twelve articles of the pact aim to foster the establishment of such reserves, to shield them from private and political plundering after they are established, and to further cooperative scientific study of the natural history in the areas thus segregated. (See also PAN-AMERICAN COOPERATION.)

Flood Control; Other Hydrologic Problems.

During 1940 flood control projects in the Mississippi basin and flood protection projects in New England and parts of California made gratifying progress, and the inhabitants of these regions can face recurrent flood hazards with somewhat greater confidence. Especially noteworthy was presidential approval (on Sept. 28) of a plan formulated by the Department of Agriculture for upstream flood control on the watershed of the Los Angeles River in California. This is the first upstream flood control project undertaken by the department since the Flood Control Act of 1936 authorized it to engage in this type of activity; and after four years of study, the Department of Agriculture has, it is hoped, evolved methods which will materially reduce flood risks in mountain districts.

Hydrologic problems have also occupied the attention of the Water Resources Section of what is now the National Resources Planning Board; and in reports transmitted to the President in February and in April, this body of experts recommends Federal participation in the control of stream pollution, and Federal investigations covering basic hydrologic data that are vital in flood control, navigation, engineering projects and soil conservation. Substantial contributions to this field of knowledge have also been made in recent months by the Section of Hydrology in the American Geophysical Union, the Western Interstate Snow Survey Committee and the American Meteorological Society. Under these organizations, in partial cooperation with governmental agencies, the accumulation of basic hydrologic information is proceeding rapidly.

Mineral Resources.

During the year just ended the European struggle has cast its lengthening shadow on conservation in America, and there can be no doubt that, in 1941, conservation will be viewed and reappraised through the eyes of war-conscious public officials. Inevitably, conservation, as it applies to mineral raw materials, has been the first field to be re-evaluated; and as 1940 ends, there is feverish activity on the part of the United States Geological Survey, the Bureau of Mines, state geological surveys and departments of conservation, and private users of mineral products, to take inventory of domestic supplies of tin, manganese and other ferrous alloys — to mention only those materials which we as a nation cannot produce in quantities sufficient to meet ordinary or emergency demands. This task was done once before, during the last war; but it may profitably be done again, for modern metallurgy can utilize lower grade ores; and it has overcome some furnace and smelter difficulties which in 1917 precluded use of ores with certain chemical handicaps. Moreover geologic knowledge has made substantial advances during the past two decades, and technological progress has created new demands for different raw materials, especially among the non-metallic minerals. That these surveys will yield significant industrial information may be confidently expected, and that they will produce a body of facts regarding mineral resources that will permit the formulation of a long-range and coherent policy of mineral conservation is all but inevitable. Whether the opportunity will be utilized is another question.

Forests.

The nation's increasing pre-occupation with defense and rearmament problems is rapidly extending to other phases of conservation. The importance of forests in the war between Finland and Russia has been widely publicized. The disruption of commerce between the lumber-producing countries of northern Europe and lumber-consumers elsewhere has been reflected in this country, both in a shortage of imported products and in the increased demand for American forest products. The crucial importance of wood in the conduct of a modern war has been shrewdly used by some far-sighted foresters to point the urgent need for forest conservation. Obviously American forests are being mobilized for defense. (See also FORESTRY.)

Civilian Conservation Corps.

The Civilian Conservation Corps, organized for the rehabilitation of youth and for conservation in 1933, under the able leadership of Robert Fechner (who died in Washington on Dec. 31, 1939) is likewise being mobilized for defense. Its new director, James J. McEntee, in illuminating articles on the subject, has announced the new objective in no uncertain terms: '. . . the Corps will train men . . . it will be a huge reservoir of trained man-power upon which industry and the national defense services can draw.'

Conservation an International Problem.

In Mr. McEntee's words can be found the guiding principle which will dominate the conservation picture in 1941, and possibly for several years to come. Conservation of natural resources will be incidental to the conservation of the nation and of democracy. Those parts of the imperfectly integrated program of conservation, which further rearmament and national defense, will flourish under the stimulus of liberal appropriations, whereas other conservational efforts are likely to atrophy under limited or drastically curtained budgets.

The current shift in emphasis may quicken public appreciation of natural resources and their place in national and world economy. The present conflagration in Europe is a struggle for natural resources; and, as Gifford Pinchot ably pointed out in an address before the Eighth American Scientific Congress in Washington on May 11, 'international cooperation in conserving, utilizing, and distributing natural resources to the mutual advantage of all nations might well remove one of the most dangerous of all obstacles to a just and permanent world peace.' According to this broad view, which has long been advocated by such experts as C. K. Leith, conservation is not merely a domestic problem — it is a matter of international concern, whether we want it to be, or not. And if any good can come out of the present war, it may be a new and well proportioned sense of values for our natural resources and their conservation, not alone in the interests of domestic economy, but also as a vital factor in international relations. See also AGRICULTURE; and NATIONAL PARKS AND MONUMENTS.