Page:America's Highways 1776–1976.djvu/211

 equipment to the Secretary of Agriculture for distribution to the State highway departments for use on Federal-aid roads. The Secretary was authorized to retain 10 percent of the material for the Department’s use. The value of the surplus materials turned over to the States totaled $139 million by July 1, 1922, when the distribution was essentially completed.

The transfer of surplus war equipment played a major role in launching the postwar construction. Many States were able to continue highway construction and maintenance during that time only because they received the surplus equipment.

The appropriations for Federal aid for roads extended only through fiscal year 1921. Consequently, Congress, in 1921, had to make a decision whether or not to continue the program, and this provided a chance to reevaluate the entire concept. There was considerable debate as to whether the Federal Government should construct a system of national highways directly or continue with the Federal–State cooperative plan. Again, the constitutional issue was raised.

Controversy also developed about what type of roads should be built with Federal-aid funds. One position was that the funds should be used for interstate highways which would serve as main lines for the State and county road networks. The other position was that the most important roads for the welfare of the country were the local roads connecting the farmer with his market and that, therefore, those should be built before the interstate roads which seemed to serve mostly the tourists.

These issues were decided in the 1921 Act. The Federal aid concept in a Federal–State cooperative program was reaffirmed.

The “character of road” issue was resolved by a most important new requirement—that Federal-aid funds should be expended only upon a federally approved, State selected system of main connecting interstate (primary) and intercounty (secondary) rural roads, limited to 7 percent of a State’s total road mileage. The 7 percent limitation was based on a concept that the system should be limted to a mileage which could be constructed in a reasonable period of time. Once the State had provided for the construction and maintenance of highways equal to 7 percent, then mileage could be added to either system as funds became available and with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture. The Act further provided that not more than three-sevenths of the total mileage could be used for the primary system, thus, a balanced program was assured. No more than 60 percent of any State’s Federal-aid apportionment could be spent on the primary system, except with the approval of the Secretary, thus, establishing the principle of categorical funding (using Federal-aid funds only for specific purposes or programs).

Another new requirement in the 1921 Act was that when the States were preparing their design standards and specifications for highway projects, they should take into consideration the durability of the type of surface and kinds of materials that would best suit each locality and that would adequately meet the existing and the “probable character and extent of the future traffic,” subject to the approval of the Federal agency. This was apparently addressed, in part to those States that had been concerned about the meaning of a provision of the 1916 Act that “. . . the Secretary of Agriculture shall approve only such projects as may be substantial in character. . . .”

Section of Missouri route 19 south of Hannibal in “Mark Twain” country. The gorge had become a dump but was reclaimed for the new road site. Scenic turnouts allow the traveler to enjoy the rustic beauty of the area.

The 1921 Act strengthened several other provisions of the 1916 Act by:

205
 * Broadening the requirement for a State highway department, or equivalent, to require that such organization be suitably equipped and organized to administer the program to the satisfaction of the Federal agency.
 * Providing that the State must have already made provisions for the State’s share of funds required each year for construction, reconstruction and maintenance of all Federal-aid highways within the State and that these funds must be under the direct control of the State highway department before any project submitted by a State could be approved by the Secretary.
 * Liberalizing the 50 percent Federal–State matching funds by increasing the Federal share of project costs, on a sliding scale computed by formula, in those States having large Federal public land areas.
 * Amending the availability of funds for expenditure to provide that funds would be available for expenditure until the end of the second fiscal