3 See Gifford Pinchot, See Gifford Pinchot, Breaking New Ground Breaking New Ground (New York, 1947), for the story, somewhat marred by Pinchot's belligerent self-aggrandizement, of the Pinchot-Roosevelt promotion of conservation as a national program and a popular movement. Powell himself was looked upon by Pinchot with some suspicion: two such monumental bureaucrats, one fading as the other rose, would hardly have got along. Also, Powell had expressed himself as not favoring a federal forestry service, fearing that it might become corrupt. He constantly advocated conservation and reclamation, but just as constantly tried to develop cooperative local control. The verdict of history, at least as most modern conservationists read it, has been that federal bureaus, though far from perfect, have been less susceptible to corruption than state governments exposed to almost irresistible local pressures, and that co-operative a.s.sociations are likely to need the protection of federal power against private interests ambitious to dominate them. (New York, 1947), for the story, somewhat marred by Pinchot's belligerent self-aggrandizement, of the Pinchot-Roosevelt promotion of conservation as a national program and a popular movement. Powell himself was looked upon by Pinchot with some suspicion: two such monumental bureaucrats, one fading as the other rose, would hardly have got along. Also, Powell had expressed himself as not favoring a federal forestry service, fearing that it might become corrupt. He constantly advocated conservation and reclamation, but just as constantly tried to develop cooperative local control. The verdict of history, at least as most modern conservationists read it, has been that federal bureaus, though far from perfect, have been less susceptible to corruption than state governments exposed to almost irresistible local pressures, and that co-operative a.s.sociations are likely to need the protection of federal power against private interests ambitious to dominate them.

4 United States Geological Survey, Letters Sent, 173-12, p. 162. United States Geological Survey, Letters Sent, 173-12, p. 162.

5 Louise Peffer points out in Louise Peffer points out in The Closing of the Public Domain, The Closing of the Public Domain, p. 170, that grazing was the last of the natural resources of the West to be dealt with, because of general suspicion of the "cattle interests." The terms of the Taylor Grazing Act, and its process of collaboration between local range users and government agencies, derive to some extent from the Mizpah-Pumpkin Creek grazing agreement authorized between the federal government and the state of Montana by an act of March 29, 1928. This was a hopeful experiment in joint leases, and it incorporated much of Powell's co-operative-user-control idea, but it had not time to work out fully before President Hoover's proposals to turn the public lands over to the states confused the situation and brought about a new cycle of policy conflicts that ended in the Taylor Grazing Act and some of the "rescue" legislation of the New Deal. Peffer, The Closing of the p. 170, that grazing was the last of the natural resources of the West to be dealt with, because of general suspicion of the "cattle interests." The terms of the Taylor Grazing Act, and its process of collaboration between local range users and government agencies, derive to some extent from the Mizpah-Pumpkin Creek grazing agreement authorized between the federal government and the state of Montana by an act of March 29, 1928. This was a hopeful experiment in joint leases, and it incorporated much of Powell's co-operative-user-control idea, but it had not time to work out fully before President Hoover's proposals to turn the public lands over to the states confused the situation and brought about a new cycle of policy conflicts that ended in the Taylor Grazing Act and some of the "rescue" legislation of the New Deal. Peffer, The Closing of the 6 Quoted in Quoted in ibid., ibid., p. 217. p. 217.

7 Ibid., Ibid., p. 218. p. 218.

8 In "The Non-Irrigable Lands of the Arid Region," for instance, he remarks that the pasturage must be carefully grazed, that ten, twenty, or even fifty acres are necessary to support one steer the year around, and that the land therefore should not be fenced except possibly by townships or tens of townships. This is to say, he approved of the handling of the range by the men actually running stock on it so long as they were restrained from monopolization of land and water to the exclusion of the small farmer. In "The Non-Irrigable Lands of the Arid Region," for instance, he remarks that the pasturage must be carefully grazed, that ten, twenty, or even fifty acres are necessary to support one steer the year around, and that the land therefore should not be fenced except possibly by townships or tens of townships. This is to say, he approved of the handling of the range by the men actually running stock on it so long as they were restrained from monopolization of land and water to the exclusion of the small farmer.

9 The official closing of the old public domain should probably be set at July 16, 1946, when the General Land Office, after directing the disposal and reservation of the public lands continuously since 1812, formally closed and merged its functions in the newly-created Bureau of Land Management. The end of the one bureau and the creation of the new one highlighted the alteration of policy from disposal to something like Pinchot's "wise use." Peffer, The official closing of the old public domain should probably be set at July 16, 1946, when the General Land Office, after directing the disposal and reservation of the public lands continuously since 1812, formally closed and merged its functions in the newly-created Bureau of Land Management. The end of the one bureau and the creation of the new one highlighted the alteration of policy from disposal to something like Pinchot's "wise use." Peffer, The Closing of the Public Domain, The Closing of the Public Domain, p. 313. p. 313.

10 Since large acreages were privately owned under practically all Bureau of Reclamation dams, the reclamation law could never be thought of as simply a means of reclaiming public lands, but must make allowances for the private holdings. It limited the amount of public land that could be acquired under any project to 160 acres, and to prevent profiteering by existing landholders, it limited the amount of water available to any owner to that which would irrigate 160 acres. That acreage-water limitation, which is completely in keeping with Powell's own small-farmer bias, has been one of the most bitterly fought clauses in any federal law. (See Paul S. Taylor, "The 160-Acre Water Limitation and the Water Resources Commission," Western Political Quarterly, III, No. 3 [September, 1950].) But the Newlands Act itself, despite local failures of administration or application, is perhaps the best and most responsible land-development law that the nation ever pa.s.sed. It authorized the use of receipts from sale and disposal of public lands as a fund for the creation of irrigation works, and it withdrew all potential irrigable lands from entry except under the Homestead Act - thus returning the public domain to the condition it would have been in had Powell been allowed to complete his Irrigation Survey in the eighteen-nineties. The early effects of the Newlands Act may be studied in James, Since large acreages were privately owned under practically all Bureau of Reclamation dams, the reclamation law could never be thought of as simply a means of reclaiming public lands, but must make allowances for the private holdings. It limited the amount of public land that could be acquired under any project to 160 acres, and to prevent profiteering by existing landholders, it limited the amount of water available to any owner to that which would irrigate 160 acres. That acreage-water limitation, which is completely in keeping with Powell's own small-farmer bias, has been one of the most bitterly fought clauses in any federal law. (See Paul S. Taylor, "The 160-Acre Water Limitation and the Water Resources Commission," Western Political Quarterly, III, No. 3 [September, 1950].) But the Newlands Act itself, despite local failures of administration or application, is perhaps the best and most responsible land-development law that the nation ever pa.s.sed. It authorized the use of receipts from sale and disposal of public lands as a fund for the creation of irrigation works, and it withdrew all potential irrigable lands from entry except under the Homestead Act - thus returning the public domain to the condition it would have been in had Powell been allowed to complete his Irrigation Survey in the eighteen-nineties. The early effects of the Newlands Act may be studied in James, Reclaiming the Arid West, Reclaiming the Arid West, and the later-developed policies of land. management in Marion Clawson, and the later-developed policies of land. management in Marion Clawson, Uncle Sam's Acres. Uncle Sam's Acres.

11 As this volume went to press in February, 1954, there were indications from several directions that the policies of federal ownership, federal management, extensive reservations, and "wise use" that developed between Powell's original As this volume went to press in February, 1954, there were indications from several directions that the policies of federal ownership, federal management, extensive reservations, and "wise use" that developed between Powell's original Arid Regions Arid Regions proposals in 1878 and the inauguration of President Eisenhower in 1953 were to be systematically a.s.saulted and if possible reversed. The turning over of the off-sh.o.r.e oil lands to the interested states was a symptom, although the off-sh.o.r.e oil was never part of the public domain as that concept historically developed. But in various public utterances both during the campaign and after his installation as Secretary of the Interior, Douglas McKay has indicated his intention of returning as far as possible on the road to the old policy of disposal which many had thought completely discredited and outgrown. By January, 1954, he had made ominous noises toward a revision and eventual breakup of the Indian reservations, had splintered a coherent reclamation project of the Bureau of Reclamation by awarding to private power companies two dam-sites on the Snake River, and was energetically going forward with a raid against the sanct.i.ty of the national parks (and perhaps angling for Reclamation Bureau support) by backing the proposed Reclamation dam in Echo Park, on the Green River, within the boundaries of Dinosaur National Monument. President Eisenhower, evidently concurring, has given his Secretary of the Interior a free hand; and in his State of the Union message he indicated his intention to push for a "revised public land policy" and "legislation to improve the conservation and management of publicly-owned grazing lands in national forests." Since the only alternatives at this time would be either to support the Forest Service in resisting pressure from stockmen for relaxation of rules in National Forest grazing lands, or to help the stockmen break the Forest Service down, there seems no doubt that his thinking and his intentions match those of Secretary McKay. There seems no doubt either that as the raids on federal reserves become more open, there will be a clear testing of the bi-partisan strength of the conservation movement and the principles that Powell's intense public career helped to create and promote. To a jaundiced historian, it appears that the "disposal" advocates make strong claims for state or local or private "development" when the pickings are good, and resources of real value are involved; but that they are very willing to have the federal government own, manage, and rescue lands which contain no valuable resources or which have been gutted by indiscriminate exploitation. Thus Texas, to take only one example, is hot for its share of off-sh.o.r.e oil and its right to the continental shelf. It never subscribed to the public domain notion and historically never surrendered its state-owned lands to the federal government upon annexation. But let a calamitous drouth hit Texas and listen to the cries for federal rescue. In the same way, stock interests have made tentative grabs at the range lands, many of them now restored to usefulness by the Soil Conservation Service and the controlled grazing under the Taylor Grazing Act; and lumber companies that have clear-cut their holdings without practicing forest management and replanting have put out their feelers toward government reserves, notably Olympic National Park and its virgin rain-forest. If that philosophy triumphs after so many years of gradual establishment of its opposite, Major Powell will undoubtedly rise from the dead in Arlington Cemetery and appear before a committee of Congress. proposals in 1878 and the inauguration of President Eisenhower in 1953 were to be systematically a.s.saulted and if possible reversed. The turning over of the off-sh.o.r.e oil lands to the interested states was a symptom, although the off-sh.o.r.e oil was never part of the public domain as that concept historically developed. But in various public utterances both during the campaign and after his installation as Secretary of the Interior, Douglas McKay has indicated his intention of returning as far as possible on the road to the old policy of disposal which many had thought completely discredited and outgrown. By January, 1954, he had made ominous noises toward a revision and eventual breakup of the Indian reservations, had splintered a coherent reclamation project of the Bureau of Reclamation by awarding to private power companies two dam-sites on the Snake River, and was energetically going forward with a raid against the sanct.i.ty of the national parks (and perhaps angling for Reclamation Bureau support) by backing the proposed Reclamation dam in Echo Park, on the Green River, within the boundaries of Dinosaur National Monument. President Eisenhower, evidently concurring, has given his Secretary of the Interior a free hand; and in his State of the Union message he indicated his intention to push for a "revised public land policy" and "legislation to improve the conservation and management of publicly-owned grazing lands in national forests." Since the only alternatives at this time would be either to support the Forest Service in resisting pressure from stockmen for relaxation of rules in National Forest grazing lands, or to help the stockmen break the Forest Service down, there seems no doubt that his thinking and his intentions match those of Secretary McKay. There seems no doubt either that as the raids on federal reserves become more open, there will be a clear testing of the bi-partisan strength of the conservation movement and the principles that Powell's intense public career helped to create and promote. To a jaundiced historian, it appears that the "disposal" advocates make strong claims for state or local or private "development" when the pickings are good, and resources of real value are involved; but that they are very willing to have the federal government own, manage, and rescue lands which contain no valuable resources or which have been gutted by indiscriminate exploitation. Thus Texas, to take only one example, is hot for its share of off-sh.o.r.e oil and its right to the continental shelf. It never subscribed to the public domain notion and historically never surrendered its state-owned lands to the federal government upon annexation. But let a calamitous drouth hit Texas and listen to the cries for federal rescue. In the same way, stock interests have made tentative grabs at the range lands, many of them now restored to usefulness by the Soil Conservation Service and the controlled grazing under the Taylor Grazing Act; and lumber companies that have clear-cut their holdings without practicing forest management and replanting have put out their feelers toward government reserves, notably Olympic National Park and its virgin rain-forest. If that philosophy triumphs after so many years of gradual establishment of its opposite, Major Powell will undoubtedly rise from the dead in Arlington Cemetery and appear before a committee of Congress.

12 Paul S. Taylor, "The Central Valley Project: Water and Land," Western Paul S. Taylor, "The Central Valley Project: Water and Land," Western Political Quarterly, Political Quarterly, II, No. 2 (June, 1949); also "Extension of Remarks of Hon. Helen Gahagan Douglas of California in the House of Representatives," II, No. 2 (June, 1949); also "Extension of Remarks of Hon. Helen Gahagan Douglas of California in the House of Representatives," Congressional Record Congressional Record (June 20, 1947, June 1, 1948, and October 5, 1949). The most objective - and damaging - report on the compet.i.tion between bureaus on the Kings and Kern, and the manipulation of bureaucratic rivalries for political advantage, is Arthur A. Maa.s.s, "The Kings River Project in the Basin of the Great Central Valley - A Case Study," Appendix 7 of (June 20, 1947, June 1, 1948, and October 5, 1949). The most objective - and damaging - report on the compet.i.tion between bureaus on the Kings and Kern, and the manipulation of bureaucratic rivalries for political advantage, is Arthur A. Maa.s.s, "The Kings River Project in the Basin of the Great Central Valley - A Case Study," Appendix 7 of Task Force Report on Natural Resources Task Force Report on Natural Resources [Appendix L] prepared for the U.S. Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government (Washington, 1949). [Appendix L] prepared for the U.S. Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government (Washington, 1949).

13 Cited in Clawson, Cited in Clawson, Uncle Sam's Acres, Uncle Sam's Acres, p. 259. p. 259.

14 For a summary of this long and rather disgraceful squabble, see Peffer, For a summary of this long and rather disgraceful squabble, see Peffer, The Closing of the Public Domain, The Closing of the Public Domain, pp. 194-95. pp. 194-95.

15 In this instance the forces of conservation were whipped into action by publicity, of which important early parts were Arthur Carhart, "Don't Fence Us In!", In this instance the forces of conservation were whipped into action by publicity, of which important early parts were Arthur Carhart, "Don't Fence Us In!", Pacific Spectator Pacific Spectator (Winter, 1947), and Bernard DeVoto's series of articles in the Easy Chair of (Winter, 1947), and Bernard DeVoto's series of articles in the Easy Chair of Harper's Magazine. Harper's Magazine.

16 Peffer, Peffer, The Closing of the Public Domain, The Closing of the Public Domain, pp. 271-72. pp. 271-72.

17 The avowed tactics of the large landholders of the lower San Joaquin Valley, as reported in The avowed tactics of the large landholders of the lower San Joaquin Valley, as reported in Business Week, Business Week, May 13, 1944, are relevant here. They included attempts to repeal the 160-acre limitation directly, use of the Army Engineers to evade Reclamation Act restrictions, attempts to get the Central Valley Project back into the hands of the state of California, and use of deep-well pumps around the margins of irrigated areas to catch excess water for use on unauthorized lands. May 13, 1944, are relevant here. They included attempts to repeal the 160-acre limitation directly, use of the Army Engineers to evade Reclamation Act restrictions, attempts to get the Central Valley Project back into the hands of the state of California, and use of deep-well pumps around the margins of irrigated areas to catch excess water for use on unauthorized lands.

18 Particularly with regard to the alleged tendency of the Bureau of Reclamation to ignore or slight the human consequences of its projects, and to consider feasibility the prime consideration in the building of a dam. The Sierra Club and other conservation groups have for years been pleading the recreational values of some of the sites that the Reclamation Bureau has marked for dams, and in particular have fought the proposed construction of dams within national parks and monuments. They have also supported the reservation of reservoir sites for the future, to be used only when the present reservoirs silt up. On both of these issues they have come into some conflict with Bureau of Reclamation policies. Particularly with regard to the alleged tendency of the Bureau of Reclamation to ignore or slight the human consequences of its projects, and to consider feasibility the prime consideration in the building of a dam. The Sierra Club and other conservation groups have for years been pleading the recreational values of some of the sites that the Reclamation Bureau has marked for dams, and in particular have fought the proposed construction of dams within national parks and monuments. They have also supported the reservation of reservoir sites for the future, to be used only when the present reservoirs silt up. On both of these issues they have come into some conflict with Bureau of Reclamation policies.

19 Among his trainees and disciples were Elwood Mead, W J McGee, Arthur Powell Davis, and F. H. Newell, all later prominent in reclamation. It can almost be said that the Irrigation Survey trained the men who later made the Reclamation Service possible. Among his trainees and disciples were Elwood Mead, W J McGee, Arthur Powell Davis, and F. H. Newell, all later prominent in reclamation. It can almost be said that the Irrigation Survey trained the men who later made the Reclamation Service possible.

20 The Education of Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams, p. 500. p. 500.

21 Ibid., Ibid., p. 451. p. 451.

22 Powell, Powell, Truth and Error, Truth and Error, p. 419. p. 419.