Relations between Government Surveys and the Mining Industry - Value of a State Geological Survey to a Nonmining Community

Now that both the national and state legislatures are seeking ways of reducing expenses, the appropriations for geological investigation and for the study of mineral resources have been greatly reduced and in some cases entirely stopped. Is this policy justified? The sums saved by these reductions are always small. If the work accomplished by these surveys has no intrinsic value to the community, but is only an interesting way of spending some of the people's money when that money is plentiful, there should be no surveys at any time. If, on the other hand, they perform a necessary function, it is indeed foolish and short-sighted to save these paltry sums to the detriment of the community. It is not my purpose to undertake a general justification of geological surveys. Rather, 1 wish to call attention to the work of one state survey that has been discontinued, and to indicate ways in which the work was valuable to the people, even though that state's mineral resources are not very important, and why it should be continued. Though at one time in Connecticut's history iron mining and smelting were important, and copper was mined in appreciable quantities in two localities, it is many years since it could be regarded as a mining state. At present Connecticut stands far down among the states in the value of its mineral products. Granite for architectural and structural purposes, trap rock, clay, agricultural lime, feldspar and quartz, together with a few other nonmetallic minerals, are produced in appreciable quantities, but the natural resources of the state consist at present much more largely in its attractive scenery, woods, lakes, shore line, and in the opportunities that these offer for rest and recreation. Is the prosecution of geological work in such a state a waste of the taxpayer's money? Or can it be that though it was formerly valuable, the work is now completed? The only way to answer these questions is to review the geological work done in the past and to consider the type of information the people want, as reflected in the requests that have been received by the director of the survey in the last few years. There have been two periods during which Connecticut has supported geological work within its borders. The first began in 1835 when Percival