THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 DAVIS 
 
r 
 
SI mi: »)| • \f irouMS 
 
 i>rr\nrMi N I" <>r im p.ik WdiiK^ 
 
 prni.irvTinNs or Tin: 
 hi\ i^ioN (»|- \\ \ri:n nixn i{< i> 
 
 I hU \HI» in \ If. SUiU> hniciiu'er 
 
 Reports on State Water Plan Prepared Pnrsnant to 
 Chapter 832, Statutes of 1929 
 
 UlLI I.I l\ \o. :;i 
 
 IM:nM|sN||;LK \ \\| \L CM MU.I^ 
 
 \\\\\\(. \'ii()\ w \ii;i5 
 
 i\ I I'Im;i; >\\ .loxoi i\ \ \i,i.i;^ 
 
 \ ( '<H)|)rruli\«' H«|M>rl l»> lh«* (lollfp' of Xpriciilliin- 
 I iiiMT>il\ <»f ( 'alifuriiiii. 
 
 I*):i() 
 
 sn9»» 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 • trrmt nr rt: \vs%tiTT \i. 
 
 MtTMl 
 
 rrf.K -. ., 
 
 sTAT^T^:.s ok i:.. • 
 
 UMA. 
 
 K - 
 
 I 
 % 
 
 II 
 
 riiAi-T»j. I 
 
 INT 
 
 rit>N AM» SIM.MAHV 
 
 c.f pri>««-<liirf 
 
 13 
 
 !i 
 
 NATl'RK OK THK PKOitLK.M IM>KH I N\KSTl<; ATION . . 
 > III uimlysliiK ilMta 
 •n of tinia 
 
 I •ttlllpUti '1 
 
 ■■\ wutvr with uthrr prudu<-ll«>i> 
 
 17 
 17 
 IS 
 !» 
 
 :i 
 ss 
 :3 
 
 • ""HA 
 
 III 
 
 rnius FuriTS .. 
 
 • •■-!•. ..f in. ..111. 'i. 
 
 I'lrM-iit irrtKMtiiiii i-vmiH 111 thr Krr»iit>>TuittrT-Kprii fiMiihilt t>rlt. 
 
 Cmaitkh IV 
 
 1 1 L'l ■ I I • I ' ■ > I ' >.: I.' I • I ' I 'I' >: 
 
 :« 
 
 27 
 31 
 
 •ta of irrtiintlon wnti-r in upp«-r :4ai> Ji>N>|uln drfiduou* frull nrvmn. 
 
 rilAITSM V 
 
 *• I • 1 ii.l I K* 
 
 42 
 
 4J 
 «3 
 
 VLKALKA 
 
 1 ■ tnv tviv. 
 
 and B' 
 
 «*ii 
 
 Vt 
 
 VII 
 
 \|i-. . li.it!...u« • ; 'V. 
 
 &I 
 
 :>i 
 
 &« 
 &« 
 
 • KT ' ■«•" V* V T L- 1 f It • ' I > I • ti : » i'l 1 1 
 
 I II 
 
 i I; < ^ V JuVOlIV VAII»"V 
 
 !'•»>•' 
 
 .1 . . ■ •■ A . 
 
 I >• It. I 
 
 *ln 7 4 
 
LIST OF TABLES 
 
 Table Page 
 
 1 Summary of data showing excess of estimated farm income over costs 
 per acre of producing tlie principal crops grown in the upper San Joaquin 
 Valley, plus interest on the average investment at 6 per cent per annum, 
 togetlier with recommended permissible annual costs for irriRation water 14 
 
 2 Cost per acre of producinK oranges in FYesno, Tulare and Kern counties 
 without allowance for interest or for irrigation water 26 
 
 3 Average cost per acre of producing and harvesting Xavel oranges in Fresno, 
 Tulare and Kern counties, segregated according to yield 27 
 
 4 Average yield per acre in packed boxes of Xavel oranges in FYesno, Tulare 
 and Kern counties, 1922-1927 27 
 
 5 Average yield, price and return per acre for Navel oranges in Fresno 
 and Tulare counties, as shown by records from ten packing houses 28 
 
 6 Variation in yield of Navel oranges as shown by the production records of 
 two packing houses in the Tulare citrus belt and by records for all Cali- 
 fornia citrus localities 29 
 
 7 Average f.o.b. prices per packed box received for Navel oranges in the 
 Tulare citrus belt by the California Fruit Growers Exchange for November, 
 December and January, 1914-1;") to 1928-29 30 
 
 S (iross income per acre to grower from oranges in the Tulare citrus belt 
 
 with net price to grower of $1 to $3.50 per packed box 32 
 
 9 Amounts per acre available from oranges in the Tulare citrus belt for 
 paying for irrigation water, interest on investment and profits 33 
 
 ] Average of 84 records of pre-harvest cost of production of peaches in 
 
 Tulare County, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929. Ages 6 years or more 36 
 
 11 Cost of production per acre for deciduous fruits on two large San Joaquin 
 Valley tracts, 1929 36 
 
 12 Budget estimates of a San Joaquin Valley bank covering cost of producing 
 certain deciduous fruits 36 
 
 13 Cost per acre of producing peaches as estimated by the Farm Management 
 Section, College of Agriculture, including interest and depreciation on 
 implements and work stock 37 
 
 14 Cost per acre of producing jieaches as estimated by the Fai-m Management 
 Section, College of Agriculture, not including interest on implements and 
 work stock, but including depreciation (m trees 37 
 
 1.5 Average cost per acre of producing and harvesting peaches in Tulare County 38 
 10 (Jross income per acre to growers from peaches with yields of five to twelve 
 
 tons an acre and a price range of $20 to $50 a ton 39 
 
 17 Data regarding cost of production per acre for apricots, prunes and peaches, 
 
 as reported in Agricultural Extension Service fcircular 24 41 
 
 18 Aveiage net profit or loss per acre from production of certain deciduous 
 fruits as reported in Agricultural Extension Service Circular 24, College 
 
 of Agiculture, University of California 41 
 
 19 Summary of data relating to the pi-c-hai'vest cost per acre of producing 
 grapes, including fixed charges l)Ut with mi allowance for irrigation water or 
 interest, 1926 to 1929 44 
 
 20 ('ost i)ir acre of producing 20 acres of Emperor grapes, as estimated by a 
 successful grower and shijiper near Porterville " 44 
 
 21 I..abor and material costs per acre on large acreage of vineyard at Delano, 
 1929 44 
 
 22 Cost per acre of producing grapes in two tracts in the upper San Joaquin 
 Valley in 1929 45 
 
 23 Budget estimates of cost per acre of producing and harvesting grapes as 
 used in 19:io by a large farm operator in San .I<>a(iuin Valley 45 
 
 24 Cost per acre iif producing Thoinjison Seedless ami Malaga raisins, 1922 
 
 to 1929, as furnished by a prominent grower near lOxeter 45 
 
 2Ti Summary of pre-harvest costs per acre of producing grapes 46 
 
 26 Average cost per acre of producing and harvesting raisins in the upper San 
 Joaquin Valley 48 
 
 27 Income per acre to growers from raisins with yields of 0.75 to 2.25 tons 
 per acre and a price range of $40 to $80 per ton 48 
 
 28 Cost i)er cutting and \m\- acre of producing and harvesting alfalfa, exclu- 
 nlve of interest and irrigation water 51 
 
 29 Cost Iter acre of ])rodu(ing and harvesting alfalfa on 186.6 acres near 
 Corcoran, 1929; yield 5.5 tons per acre 61 
 
3t> •'■•^t JKT «iT»' of |ir<Nlll<-||IK •"•' ' 
 
 .11. il In Mrrrvd «*€)uiu>. 1 ■ 
 
 J I • • • •■ • • r«> of I' 
 
 J." , ■ rv of pi .., 
 
 l_ik.' It.i-in 
 
 32 Suiiiinuiy of dlltll rPlatlflK ' 
 u|<|vi-r San J<>»i|uln Vulli-\ 
 
 34 «'..-<t p»T uiTf i>f iirixln 
 iir.-.m, n5 n*-i up by Kn • 
 
 3'. I I- .-vmlxT 1 farm prlr<- fut i^>t(<>ii in 
 3s <'>'!«t of Wilier at d'UxiTv |Miint unci 
 
 Irrlicatlon iiytitpni!« jmtvIiik xuIikIah 
 37 -r.,f .' innual co«l of pump""- 
 
 .,.-(,... .If 
 
 . 1 r . 
 
 in 
 
 linp^ 
 
 
 
 . ....*rr 
 
 utfe 
 
 
 
 ... ^ 
 
 it 
 
 
 mt\'- 
 
 MtlllK 1 
 
 :>i 
 
 ■r pnidudn* and h 
 
 <>iton 
 
 In th«< 
 
 67 
 
 
 
 • -f^ 
 
 tlif 
 
 Krrn 
 
 t AKrI. 
 
 ^ 
 
 nnti Tulnff 
 -ulturf .. 
 
 il 
 
 iti * 
 
 KH 
 
 IIIhI 
 
 II Joll 
 
 • iiitn 
 
 Vull*y 
 
 •0 
 
 ct 
 
 '<« . . innuai coat of pump. i.. -■..'. t pumplns plant. 60 csIIoim per 
 
 minuip ...... . .... ii 
 
 !.' •'•>!«t of water to IniKators In IniKiitlon dlatrirtn. foothill Htni« belt. l»l»-. «5 
 
 «" I "..It of water to IrrlKatom fwrvi «| by water ri>in|>anlei«. fiMithlll citruii Im-Ii. 
 i:';9 .. - --- •• 
 
 4 1 i*.,«f of wntfT to irrlirniorp on fhf»«« fnrma iiuppll<*<l exrlualvely bjr farm 
 4: 
 
 un<l 
 
 nrrnn lrrlrn»»-«l, nvrrasv amounta 
 
 • of water per acre 
 
 y. .......__.. 
 
 43 Kiitimate of rout of punipiiiK from a wt-lL.... . 
 
 44 Annual cont of water to Irrliratorn on ;.....;ji aupplb^l n.lujilvrtv 
 by farm pumpInK plantji, Krrn J'ounty. 192* ....... 
 
 4 J Summary of diversion r«<-ord.«. KInica County cmnals — — -- 
 
 45 Hnn-'.fT of Klnir« \K\\t at PLdrn -- 
 
 47 • init to ' a< r« •" 
 
 ! rri>pj< I In the 
 Miinfont art-a, Kuii;?i t'ounty 
 
 4\ >.inrTt.> . r \ . .f !)i. .lil , r.l.tiii.- ti, .■.««•.•' Illrlll rnlix. tntrrcHt on mpltnl Bti"'k 
 
 ■ual wat 
 
 p.t ry of data relalInK to nv(<rnK>- annual t-oat of wnti-r jwr arrr-fooi 
 ,.,| by mutual water romi>anleii i'> '*"• Hanford area. KIniia County.. 
 
 3" (•..■.t of water to IrrlKatora «>n wven fa- 
 Cortoran Irriiration l»l»<trl<t. Tular. ' 
 
 SI Kx'f-n' of pri\at<- i>ti"'ptMe t>?i nr. 
 ifx In Ih'- I- 
 
 it fai^i pumplns plantn Inalde 
 ual water 
 
 *» 
 
 
 ry of <l;if.« 
 
 
 
 ri- and 
 
 
 
 ■: lllv.r 
 
 
 
 ry of data r 
 
 
 
 • ii.iti- total .- -fc 
 
 
 
 >i Riser l>.-lta. Tubi 
 
 1 
 
 
 : > ..f data rrli'" :• •■ 
 
 
 
 1 by mutual « 
 
 & 
 
 Am 
 
 
 
 f.»rf. 
 
 [•ur piriK- p!-« 
 
 •> 
 
 1 •, fc » 
 
 r -,> .i..r ».• 
 
 r muluatl water • •■nipMltlini 111 lb* 
 
 nd 
 in 
 
 ..t 
 
 «7 
 
 C» 
 
 70 
 
 71 
 7J 
 7J 
 
 7S 
 
 7« 
 
 » I 
 
 7» 
 KO 
 
 ts 
 
 IS 
 
 " •upplled esrlualvely by 
 
 LIST OF PLATES 
 
 Plate 
 
 f V 
 
 il 
 III 
 
 IV 
 V 
 
 VI 
 
 vn 
 
 !•■«»• 
 
 t %• 
 
 ....... 
 
 Pll 
 
 ,. powrr 
 
 Relation 
 
 1- 
 
 Relation 
 
 betwern 
 
 <*.«it f,f 
 
 • aiva'ii V 
 
 t 
 
 .\ruiii.>; 
 
 
 nf .1 hjr\«-«'lr:« V«\«-I ••rBn»r« and farm 
 ^>a by \ ai»d cl 
 
 31 
 
 ri>e 19 
 
 I»I7 
 
 
 - I ■ *« I ■ 
 
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 
 
 Mr. Edward Hyatt. 
 State Engineer, 
 Sacramento, California. 
 
 Dear Sir : Tliere is transmitted herewith a report entitled 
 "Permissible Annual Charges for In-igation Water in U])per San 
 Joaquin Valley," by Prank Adams and Martin Iv. Huberty. Attached 
 to this report, as Chai)ter VIII, is a rei)ort entitled, "Present Cost of 
 Water to Irrigators in Upper San Joa(|uin Valley,'' by C. V. Givan 
 and Jerald E. Christiansen. 
 
 This is one of two reports which you re(nTested the College of Agri- 
 culture to pre]>are for you dealing with certain economic asjx'cts of 
 the State Water Plan. 
 
 You will recall that I appointed a committee from our staff to confer 
 with \ou in connection with outlining the work, it being understood 
 that this committee would also rcvicNV the reports i)rior to their ho'm^ 
 forwarded to you. 
 
 This commillec has com|)let('d the task assigned to it \u cinuiection 
 will) the accomjianying rei)ort. It has a|)proved this i-eport as lU'esent- 
 ing a reasonable analysis of tlie jn-oblem of what the farmers of Fpjier 
 San .loarpiin Valley can afford to pay for irrigation water, and as 
 fui-ni^hing a basis for answei-ing the (jueslions asked. It therefore 
 reconunemls transmittal of the report to you. 
 
 Very sincerely yours, 
 
 Dean. College^ of Airricullui-e. 
 
 I '.i'rk('Ic>". ( 'alit'oniia. 
 
 o.-tohri- ;;(). i!):i(). 
 
 (<i) 
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENT 
 
 TIh' \vrit»»r> ackiu)\vl»*<l^e \ho very irjMVTons asNiMt»noo of the Ajrri- 
 (Miltural Kxteiisioii S«>rvii«e of the ('oll»"^'«' of A^riiMilturf. r«*rnl«*n»i| 
 I'hiefly through Assistant Stat«' Lt^ader li. H. Smith. Atrriciilttiral 
 KxtriisioM S|»»M'ialists I.. W Fliiharty and II. U. \V»'llin<in. Farm 
 Advisors W. E. (tiltillaii. \. W Tayl<»r, .1. IV Bnivin. ainl \Valla«'t» 
 Sullivan. aii<l Assistant Farm Advisors .1. ('. .lohnston. N. I). Hudson, 
 intl II. H. Ktdlrr; of tht- Farm .Mana;;«-m«Mit Sivtion of tin* Collrtri' of 
 .X^rindtun*. through I'roffvMir H L Adams and L. A. Crawford; of 
 the water eommittees of Tular«'. K«'rn. and Kintrs (•«»ur>ti«'s; of the 
 Division of Watrr Hesourees. State l)i-pariment of Publie W(»rks. and 
 of many individuals, inejudint; farnirni. raneh owners or manairrrs. 
 iud paekint; housi- manau'l'rs, who h;ive Hunplied information. Tlie cost 
 ' f produetion n-fords obtained from the Atrrieultural Kxtrnsion S«'rvice 
 and from thr Farm .MaTuiv'»"ni»*nt S«»<Mion have b««en invaluahhv Finally, 
 'he writrrs •'xpn*v< tlu-ir appni-iatinn of th«* eonsidfratr erilieisms and 
 ■onstruelivr suuirestions made by mt-mlxTs of thi* t'olli?'.' .if A.'ri.-idt nr.. 
 .idvi.s4iry eomniittee ap|Kiinti«l by I)«an (' II Hulidii^ 
 
 (7) 
 
ORGANIZATION 
 
 STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 
 
 B. B. :\Ieek Director 
 
 Edward Hyatt State Engineer 
 
 A. D. Edmoxstox Drputii State Engineer 
 
 (8) 
 
^i 
 
 ORGANIZATION 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE 
 Cooperating in Water Resources Investigation 
 
 ('. r.. IIi'TiHisoK Dean, College of Agriculture 
 
 This report was; jiroparod by 
 
 Frank Adams. 
 Professor of Irrigation Investigations and Practice, 
 
 and 
 
 Maktix K. IIibhrty. 
 Assistant Profissor of Irrigatitm Inrrstigations and Practice, 
 
 with the advice and cooperation of the foUowin<r comniittcc 
 appointed by the Dean of the ('oMe^o of Afrricnlture: 
 
 Frank Adams. 
 Pntffssnr of I rrigation I nrrstigtitiiDis and Prartirr, Chairwan 
 
 II. K. K RDM an. 
 
 Professor itf Agricultural Economics 
 
 K*. L. Adams. 
 Professor of Agricultural Economics 
 
 David Wf.kks. 
 Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics 
 
 \. r. Smith. 
 Assistant State Ltadtr. Agricultural Estinsion Service 
 
 L. \V. Fmiiartv. 
 Specialist in Agricultural Extension 
 
 { 9 ) 
 
CHAPTER 832, STATUTES OF 1929 
 
 All (let making an appropriation for work of exploration, invest i<iatinn 
 and preliminary plans in furtherance of a coordinated plan for 
 the conservation, development, and utilization of the water 
 resources of California inctuding the Santa Ana river, Mojave 
 river and all water resources of southern California. 
 
 [I object to tlie item of $450,000.00 in section 1 and reduce thie amount to $390,- 
 000. OO. With tliis reduction I approve tlie bill. Dated June 17, 1929. C C. Young, 
 Governor.] 
 
 The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 
 
 Seotiox 1. Out of any nionoy in tlie state treasury not otherwise 
 ajjprojiriated, the sum of four hundred fifty tliousand dollars, or so 
 much thereof as may he necessary, is hereby appropriated to be 
 expended by the state department of ])ublic works in accordance Avith 
 law in conductinor work of exjiloralion. investifration and jircliminary 
 plans in furtherance of a coordinatt'd ])lan for the conservation, 
 development and utilization of the water resources of California includ- 
 inp: the Santa Ana river and its tributaries, the ]\Iojave river and its 
 tributaries, and all other water resources of southern California. 
 
 Sec. 2. The dej^artinent of ]nd)lic works, subject to the othei- pi-o- 
 visions of this act, is empowered to exi)eiid any portion of the aj^jiropri- 
 ation herein provided for the purposes of this act, in cooperation with 
 Ihe provernment of the Ignited States of America or in cooperation with 
 political subdivisions of the State of California ; and for the purpose 
 of such cooperation is hereby authorized to tlraw its claim ui)on said 
 a|)propriation in favor of the Un.ited States of America oi- the appro- 
 I>riate aprpncy thereof for the jiayment of the cost of sucli portion of 
 said cooperative woi-k as may be determined by the <lepartm(Mit of 
 |>ublic woi'ks. 
 
 Se(". 8. \'])(m the sale of any bonds of this state hereafter author- 
 ized to be issued to he cxptMided for any one oi- more of the purpo^|»s 
 ■for which any part of the appropriation herein pi-ov.ided may have 
 been expended, the amount so expiMided from the appropi-iation herein 
 |>i-ovided shall be retni-nrd into the ^'eTiei-al fund of the state treasury 
 out ol' the proceeds first derived from tlic sale of said bonds. 
 
 ( 10 ) 
 
FOREWORD 
 
 This rt'port is mw f»f n sitIos of hiilU'tins on tin* Stutr Watj-r Tlan 
 
 • >I by th«' Division of Watrr lu'xmrtv's piirsiinnt to provisions of 
 
 ,tor f<\'2. .StHtutes of 1!>2!». dirt'ctin^' furlluT invrsti^'wtions of the 
 
 watiT r»*sonrt'«ni of California. Thf S4'rii's inclmh's Hnlh-tin Noh. 2.'» to 
 
 •;. incUisivp. Hulh'tin No. '2't. "Krport to L<>^islatiiri' of WVM on 
 
 -atr WatiT Plan." is a sununar\ r«'p«»rt of tin- «'ntin' invest ijrat ion. 
 
 Prior to thi- studii's i-arricM out nntlfr this ai't. th«' watiT rcsourrrs 
 
 ivestipation had hi'«>n in proj.'n's.s more or h'ss continuouMly sine** l!'*Jl 
 
 rul«T several statutory enactments. The n*sults nf the earliiT work 
 
 l»ave »)een puhlisheil asnnljetin \os. .{. 4. .'>. ♦;. !». 11. I'J. l.'l. 14. 1I» ami 20 
 
 of the former Division <»f Kn^ini*erinu' Hn<l Irri^fation. Nos. .'>. (> and 7 of 
 
 »lie former Division of Water I{iu'l>tM. nnti No.h. 2'J and 24 of the Division 
 
 ' Water HeHourees. 
 
 Thi^ bulletin is one <»f two reports dealing with certain tH'onomic 
 pii'ts of the State Wafer IMan prepared e(Mt|H>ratively by the Collejje 
 • A^rrieulture. I'niversity of California 
 
 The price whi«*h land owners in the upper San 'loaipiin Valley can 
 
 afford to pay for irrigation water is r«'<"Oirnizi'<l as a matter worthy of 
 
 rious consi«leration. This rep«»rl preniMits an analysis of the problem. 
 
 iMlfi-tlier with eoni'liiNions on the amount that miuht l>e chartfed annually 
 
 for irrijration water at the land fur thf more important crop«. );ro\\n 
 
 I the up|>er San Joatpiin Valley 
 
 ( 11 ) 
 
! 
 
CllAI'TKi: I 
 
 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 
 
 Tins rfptirt |Hrs«iit.N liic ii'sult.s ui an lll\^•^tl^;atl^M in ilitrrmiiH' li(»\v 
 imith tlu' laiulowiHTs of tin- upju'r San .Ioai|uin \'alU'y can afTonl to 
 pay for sm-li irri^'ation \vat«M- as inav Im> iiuport»'«l into that arra uihUt 
 the prop»Ks*»d statf plan of watrr ronsorvation. 
 
 In undertaking' this investigation it was decided to approach the 
 prohli'in primarily from tin- standpoint of «'ost of pr<Kliu*tion and farm 
 inc'onif. with sui'h ronsidi-ration of i-i<'p athiptahility as thr tinu* avail- 
 nbh' for th«' stiidy woiiKI permit. A hirjje anunint of material relating; 
 
 . costs of pnuluftion. yi«'l«ls and pritM-s was known to Im* available 
 ironi the enterprise eftieiiMiey studies of the A^'rieultnral Kxtension 
 St^rviee of the ( 'olle«re of Aj^'rieultiir*', as well a.s in tlu* Farm Manajre- 
 iiient Section of the Collejre of Agriculture. Having Imm'H assured the 
 
 dl cooperation of these airencies, it was (h>ci<led that the first steps 
 ANould h«' to ass«'nd)le and stiidy this available material and to vrather 
 such additional iiiforniatioti a> iiii"lif !>»• imssilili- flirdiii/li fl.Id 
 in vest ijrat ions. 
 
 Realixin^ that what the hnnlowners are now paying; for irrigation 
 
 water would throw lijrht on the question under investigation. inf«»rma- 
 
 von already available as to pres»'nt costs of irri^'ation water wjis as.s4>m- 
 
 led an*l a special tield study made in the four upper counties of the 
 
 ilb-y with a vi«\v to obtaininp additional <lata. The ri»sults of thift 
 latter study are contained in Chapter VIII. It is. of cours4>. reco>»ni/ed 
 that pn*s«>nt irri^ration water costs are. in many ca.s«'s, either less or more 
 than is jtistifi^il. and therefore are not always a satisfactory m«*asure of 
 
 "permissible" charpe. 
 
 Mtthod of Procedure. 
 
 The detaih'd pr<K'edur«' followed in the u itioii has Iwen i 1 ' to 
 
 avertain th«* costs of pnMiucini: and har\ .. .„' the principal crops 
 
 irrown in the up|M>r San Joa<|uin Valley, without includint; interest 
 
 II the average investment or a charjre f<»r irrii»ati<»n water; (2) to 
 
 t -' ' • the farm inconu* on the basis of probable yicM.H and prices; (^) 
 
 '' ...,jute inter«*st an the average irjvestment at ti |M«r cent |M-r annum. 
 
 tid i4) from the fore^oini; to ascertain the margin remainint;. after 
 
 overin^r the costs of prtMlucint? and harv«>stinK the crop. toj»i>ther with 
 
 interest at fi per <'ent per annum It ' ' .,.,.. .^^^ 
 
 will Im* available for i-;<v ni.nf v fm il 
 
 profits over interest. 
 
 The data cathered are most complete for or«n>re««, dividunuo fruitii. 
 frrai>e>i, and cotton. Kor each of theso crops chnrtM hnve lui-n prepared 
 
 frt»m whi«'h the amount i\- ' ' !•• nlKive the ci>stH of pro' - rid 
 
 harveNtinij the crop and in' u »i p^r cent can Ix* reaild;. d 
 
 For the other croj)?* included in the stu«ly. i r . alfalfa, irrain. and miHcel- 
 laneoiis crops, the presi-ntation is lej4.H r ••. but ■.i are 
 
 ■'■ 'Vo*! to Ih* includi'd to v — • * "••iratti.n^ tm- Mniounta 
 
 miirht reaxuiiahiv })•• ) • r 
 
 ( 13 ) 
 
14 
 
 niVISIoN OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 Table 1 shows the excess of farm income over the costs of producing: 
 and liarvestin^' tlie crops considered, tojietlier with interest on the 
 avera^-e investment at (i i)er cent \)cr annum ; also the amounts it is 
 belie\'ed can reasonably be i)aid for irrigation water. 
 
 The costs considered permissible are for a full supply of water 
 delivered at the land on which it is to be used, and are therefore 
 intended to include all such items a;s interest and principal payments on 
 necessary capital expenditures for irrip-ation works and water sup]ily, 
 costs of maintenance and operation of irri<>ation works, as ordinarily 
 understood, and supplemental pumpinj;. 
 
 It is not sug'<>ested that none of the o:rowers,in the upper San Joa(piin 
 Valley can ])ay higher irrigation charges for the different crops studied 
 than are arrived at herein. Some, of course, produce more than others, 
 and there are wide ditt'erences in the efficiency of growers, types of 
 farm enterprises, amount of working capital available, and the numerous 
 other factors that determine cost of production and farm income. 
 Neither is it suggested that the charges ])ro))Osed can be ]iaid by all 
 of the growers, this also being because of the ditl'erences mentioned 
 above. The i>ermissible charges suggested are intended to be base 
 charges which will be assessed in accordance with the earning capacity 
 of the land; that is. on a benefit or ad valorem basis. 
 
 The extent of the water emergency in tlie up])er San -loaciuin Valley 
 has not been taken into consideration in this investigation. Conse- 
 quently, no attempt has' been made to detei-inine what the growers can 
 pay for water in order to save in>'estments which would be lost or 
 l)laced in jeopardy without im])ortation of an additional water su]')])iy. 
 Those matters were considered outside of the realm of the investigation. 
 
 TABLE 1 
 
 SUMMARY OF DATA SHOWING EXCESS OF ESTIMATED FARM INCOME OVER COSTS 
 
 PER ACRE OF PRODUCING THE PRINCIPAL CROPS GROWN IN THE UPPER SAN 
 
 JOAQUIN VALLEY, PLUS INTEREST ON THE AVERAGE INVESTMENT AT 6 
 
 PER CENT PER ANNUM, TOGETHER WITH RECOMMENDED PERMISSIBLE 
 
 ANNUAL COSTS FOR IRRIGATION WATER' 
 
 
 Crop 
 
 ♦ 
 
 Excess of 
 
 income over 
 
 costs and 
 
 interest 
 
 Recommended 
 
 Iiermissible 
 annual cost of 
 irrigation water 
 
 Oranges 
 
 
 
 $34 10 
 9 80 
 7 75 
 
 t 
 
 1 
 
 14 50 
 
 13 00 
 
 9 
 
 $30 00 
 
 
 7 50 
 
 nr:i|H"^, more common varii'tip? . -_«.._,_..- .......... 
 
 h 00 
 
 
 7 50 
 
 Grain, I'ulare Lake lands only. . . ... ... ................ 
 
 6 00 
 
 Cotton ... 
 
 7 50 
 
 Alfalfa 
 
 
 
 8 00 
 
 Miscellaneous crops 
 
 
 
 5 00 
 
 
 
 
 ' IrriRation water is not included in co«t8 of production. For ba.sL<i on which farm income has been estimated sse 
 
 stateniiMils reuanlind each crop or uroup of croiw conhidered. 
 ' Uel<riiiiiicd only Ki'niTally; s"'i> Irxt. 
 
 Since what seems to be reasonable ]>ermissible costs (which in each 
 case are less than the excess of fai'iu income over the costs of producing 
 and harvesting the crop, together with interest on the avei-age invest- 
 ment), have lieen suggested, it seems desirable l<i stale the reasons on 
 wliieli the eoneliisioiis expressed ;ire based. 
 
pkumissium: iimmcation » iiahoks 
 
 15 
 
 Oratif/fs. — Altli«>uj;h il is h«'li«'V»Ml I'hil.- I n'ii^oiinhly fixes tin- •rt'iiiTMl 
 inatrnitiult' of piM-missihlc irriL'iitioii wiitrr char'^'cs of llic jiviTajrc trrowcr 
 of oiaii;rfs ill the 'riilair citnis licit at about $:{.'! an acre, the outlook 
 
 for tin' niaintonaiUT of tli«' rt'lativciy lii-rli avera^M- pri* f the past 
 
 tiftt't'U years is not cncourafjinjr. 
 
 Tliis is (luf to the iiuTcast'd conipft it ion from oran<r«'s an<l «rrap»'fniit 
 from Flori.la aiitl Texas at the time wlieii the 'Pulare eitrus helt navels 
 are liarvt'st»'<l. 
 
 Drrifluitu^ Fruits. — The wiile atlaptaliility of Califoniia to the ^Towth 
 of (leeiduous fruits and the faet that a very laiy** numlier of the farmers 
 of the state desire to jrrow them, irives assuranee that, unless eonditions 
 ra«lieally ehanire in the future, the aerea«re in deciduous fruits will 
 constantly tend to approach what mii/ht he called the saturation point. 
 FurtlMM-niure. the eost-of-prodiiction data presented r«'late in the main 
 to oiilv one of the deciduous fruits and sut^ciei't information is not 
 available for other deciduous fruits to justify other than a conservative 
 irri<;afion water charu'e. Admittedly, the difTerence between the indi- 
 cHted excess of farm iiii'omc ovei- costs and the permissible chai-<re 
 su«.'jre'te<l is not larur*' enouirh to be sijrnificant, in vii'w of the larirc 
 number of items that enter into the cost of production and harvt'stiiiir 
 of de«-iduous fruits. Therefore the conclusions of the report are but a 
 conserv}itiv«' ajiplication of the results of the analysis presented. 
 
 I'ndoubtedly. many of the hett«'r <rrowers of deciduous fruits will 
 be willing.' to incur an annual cost of il?!;') or $20 an acre, but these are 
 not believed to be sjife fit.Mire> for state jilannint.'. If. however, the 
 owners of j:ood deciduous fruit orchards are willing' to assume an 
 nbli^Nition to pay for irrigation water at the rati- of $10 per acre ])«'r 
 year, it is the conclusion of the report that the state, or other responsible 
 authorities, would be justified in accept in«r the contract. 
 
 (intpfs. — As in the case of deciduous fruits, it seems probable that the 
 acreaire in trra|)es will constantly tend to exceed that which will 
 l»ermif a lar;re profit t(» thf '_'»i.\ .r- and a i-niisiTvat ivc |>eiiiiissible 
 irrijration cost is re<piire<i. 
 
 Cotton. — This is an annual crop ^rrown |jir<.'ely on rented land and it 
 is bi'lieved that, in the lontr run. cotton t'rowinir will not be attractive 
 unles.M it pives prospects of substantial i»ic«»ine per acre in excess of the 
 necessary annual outlay. 
 
 Alfalf'i — This is one of the most \* idi-ly jrrown crops in California and 
 IS li!:e|y U* remain sf>. Present costs as liiuli as $10 an acre on tli*' 
 jfo<Hl land ure not at all uncommon anions i;row<'rs nnIih ar«' succeHsful 
 and of coiirso there are larp* areas in alfalfa that are now payinjr 
 more than that. Ff»r an average, or haM'. however, which will be less 
 than iusfitied for the In^tter lanrls and too much for the poorer lands 
 in alfjilfa. a figure of P^ is suuiJesied. Kveii $^ will seem to s<»me too 
 hijrh for u ba.se pernii.«isible cost f«ir this en»p. In this connection it 
 should be renienilMTed that the upper Sjin Joaipiin Valley is very favor- 
 ablv situated with reference to the larjre population centers of southern 
 California. 
 
 It must Im» recoirni/ed that the cost of irriiration water fop establislied 
 area>. can W higher than for proj««ets in the niakint;. that is, if the 
 
16 
 
 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 lands not in eroji or still in low production must pay for water on tlu 
 same or api)roximately the same basis as lands in full or ajiproximatel^ 
 full production. All of the costs suggested in the above table are fo] 
 land in established ])ro(luction. 
 
 One cro]) of some imiiortaiice in upper San Joacpiin Valley, viz 
 olives, is not covered in the above summary and no data regarding th( 
 cost of producing this crop, or its income, have been given. On tin 
 basis of general information only, which clas.ses the olive with sue) 
 plantings as Emperor grapes and some citrus, a figure of $10 per acii 
 per year is suggested as a permissible irrigation water charge. Onl^ 
 the better varieties of olives could reasonably be classed with citru; 
 fruits and for that reason the water cost suggested is nnich below tlia 
 for citrus. 
 
rERMISMIil.l. Iliiat.A I lO.N t ilAK<il> 17 
 
 CIIAI'IKK II 
 NATURE OF THE PROBLEM UNDER INVESTIGATION 
 
 Comploxitics in Analyzing Data. 
 
 What thi* l«n«lo\vii«*r i'hu affonl to pay for irri^'ation watrr must 
 always In- ri'lativ*-. iM't-aiisi* of tin* many fa«'tt>rs iiivoivcd, vuvh of 
 whirli in turn Iwars somr jlircct or intlin-i-t n-latiou to some out' or all «>f 
 th«» othrrs. 
 
 For instantM'. surh «|u«'stions as tlu' typo of tlio farm rntrrprise and 
 its sizo. tlu' knowl«'<li;«' ami aliility of thi- farnu'r, tlu' W(»rkinv' I'apital li«' 
 has availahlf and tln' fxt«'nt of his intli>l>ti'dn«>ss — all of \v|ii«'h an* 
 more or h'ss personal or iiulividiud to tlu* ^rrowt-r -very detinitely afTect 
 the amount he ean pay for irrijration water. Ai;ain, this amount may 
 dep«'nd on liow mueh he s|>ends for plowing' and eultivatiu'^' ; for prun- 
 mjr. fertilizing: and pest (Mmtrol; f«ir state, eounty and «ither taxes; for 
 harvesting; an<i markftinu'. etc.. sinee all or most of these faetors may 
 atTet't not only the eost of production, hut idso tin- yiehl and henee the 
 farm income. 
 
 The chaiiLMu^ relation hctwiti I In- viduf of land and the cost of 
 irrij^ation water introduces anotJH-r element of uncertainty. This, how- 
 ever, is not a nuitter which can b' arbitrarily determined throu^rh the 
 tixinp of water charir»"s. It is obvious the water necessary to nuike 
 laiujs produi'e i>, as e^smfial as the .-oil ; iind that since th«'r<' is a (•••rtain 
 nuiximum price for any ^iven prnduction which a farmer can atTord 
 to pay for lan<l and water to^rether. whi«*h price he can not exceed 
 without loss, the price of either the land or the water separately mu.st 
 ultinuitely be governed l)y the prife of the otluT. 
 
 In other wonls. as the cost of providini; irrigation water increases, 
 the amount farmers can safely pay for land corresponiJinjrly di-ereawH. 
 or at least must «leerea.se if the inv«'stment in to Im* economical. I/ow 
 'ion c«)sts rneoiirairf development, just as hit'h irriir«tion costs 
 :;..., it. While sensiim these fm ts. the cfUJtinuan. .• ..f what n>i>:ht. 
 »»ver a iM»ri«Ml of years, b«« j-onsidered normal land pn ., prie«'« that 
 
 do not reflect the pres4>nt deprevsi«in in ajjriculture. has Ini-n axsunuMl 
 in the study. The conclusion can not be e<<eaped, howi'ver, that un«UT 
 the unu.siudly favorable climatic j.nd nuirket condilioiiH of the up|N>r 
 San •loatpiin Valley, the price of b nd will !>«• affecti'd adversely by the 
 necessary cosrt of irritration water much more in the future than it has 
 Imm'Ii in the past, due to the • 'id for and the '■ 
 
 cost of tin- latter. liy this :...,;. .. :lie irrigation w ^ 
 
 appreciably exceed thf**' arrived at in this reiKirt, the iM-tti-r landn, if 
 capable of };rowin(; prcMiiicts of hitrh value and hi(;h demand, will Im* 
 ke|>t in prfMluefion 
 
 The -•■••■' -stu.n has In-en niade that it is i"'» ""sjiible to M-parnle a 
 **|M>rni ' irriu'ation water chnrue from t .-r items in the cohI 
 
 of producing a farm crop: that an inereaw* or «b"erea««' in any of the 
 important it«'ms f»f j-ONt \\«>ulil It' ' ' ' •• farni' 
 
 atTord to pay for irrijfatiun »< ■'• ■ ''n.-d 
 
 2- sOiijJ 
 
■ 
 
 f 
 
 IS DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 (ii-antiii;^- this scpai-at i()ii dI' IIh' " permissible" watci' charo'e from the 
 other cost items pi-esonts (liffienlties, llie writers believe such separa- 
 tion is iievertlieless feasible, provided the total of the other items of 
 cost can be reasnjiably detei-mincd from the data available. It is 
 believed such is the case and the study has ])r()cee(led accoi'din<i;ly. 
 
 Interpretation of Data. 
 
 It is clear from what has been s1ate(l above that the vai-iation in cost 
 of producinp; the crops grown in the upper San Joaijuin Valley is wide, 
 and that, due to this variation, wluit one farmer can afford to pay for 
 watei- witli any aiven yield and price may be more or less than another 
 can |)ay. with the same yield and ])riee. Tt may be stated further that 
 one whose cost of jiroduction is hijiher than that of others may still be 
 able to jiay a hiiiher water chai'ii-e because the higher cost of ])roduction 
 may be due to better farming;' practice which results in better yields. 
 These difficulties^ can not all be ijiven mathematically correct weight in 
 the pi-esent study, because the data are not sufficiently complete to 
 l)ei'mit the coi-i-elation. Xoi-, consid( ring that to a large extent esti- 
 mates are being dealt with, does this seem necessary for reaching a 
 practical answer to the (luestion under consideration. The entleavor 
 has been nuuh' to meet these difficulties by using costs of i)roduction 
 which seem to rei)resent good ])ractice. Although termed "average" 
 costs in the i-eport, they are not always strictly the ai'ithmetical average 
 of the individual records used, because ])ersonal judgment has 
 influenced clioice of the costs decided on as con-ect foi' use in this 
 study. 
 
 It miuiit be argued lluit perinissi!)le irrigation charg(\s based on costs 
 of pi'oduction undei" "good practice." whethei- these costs are the 
 average or above or below the average, will be excessive for those 
 whose costs ai"e higher. Accoi-ding to this thought, foi" instaiu-e. if 
 the costs used were the median of the records stiulied and farm inconu% 
 were always directly related to fai'm costs, the charge would be too 
 high foi- hair of the fai'uu'rs. The point is, however, that costs of pro- 
 duction and farm income are not always directly related. Tlii^her 
 co<ts iiia\- result from b.'ttei- practices, which, in turn, bi'ing higher 
 yields. ( )n the other hand, jowci' production costs, because some 
 important operation tias been eliminated or cui-tailed, may rediu-e the 
 incoiMi'. In an.\- event, a certain ])roportion of those whose costs of 
 ))i-oduclion are hiyher than the costs used will lia\e incomes sufficiently 
 iiu'rcased through hiirher yields to pei'iiiit the iii-igation chai'ge sug- 
 geste(| and still cover the allowance foi' depreciation and I'oi' interest 
 on the values of the land assume(| in the report. Therefoi'e, moi'C 
 farmei'.s than those whose costs of production do not exceed the figures 
 used in the aiudysis will be able to pay the iri'igation chai'ges suggested 
 without hai'dship. 
 
 If costs of |)rodiiction are higher without any compensating iiu'i'case 
 in yield, the ix-rmi.ssible charges suggestecl will be too gi-eat for the 
 particular individuals concerne<|. These chai'ges could not be jtaid 
 without encroaching U|ion the allowance foi- de|)i-eciat ion and ijiteicst. 
 unh's> the excess is covered b\- the dilfei'ences between the total iriargiii 
 of tin' I'aiMii income above all costs and the pernnssible iri'igation charges 
 suggested. If. howevei-, the plight of these farmers were due to poorer 
 
l'KI{MI>sS||tLK IHKKiATION' < IIARISICS 19 
 
 i|uality of . soil, thry rotiltl Iw put on a n-ltitiv«> parity with tlut.M- Ix-tti-r 
 sitiiatiMt by a>i>r.vsimr th,» rhar^cs in acvonlHUtM* with lh«' «*arnini» 
 capnrity of thr hiixl : that is. on a lM>n«-tit or ad vah)n*ni hasis. It in 
 as>iini«><i in this r«*port that that prniTiiiirc will \u- fo||ow<*«|. It' th«> 
 inahility of the farnu>r> to u\vv\ th<> payniriit sM|>'p>st«Ml is du*' to their 
 poor luana^tM-ial ahility, lack of capital, or other causes not inherent in 
 the soil, it is ohvions ad valorem «»r heiiefit aMsoKsinents would r>ot a'wf 
 thein relief. 
 
 •lust as |)ersonal judirment has ••iilered partly into decisions as to 
 what i'onstitute nornuil costs of production aind harvi'stinjr, the fiirurcH 
 as to farm income have heen hased oidy partly on historical averajres 
 i»f yields anti prices. Foi- th*- latter, the hest availalile co|lectiv«' ju«li.' 
 m»'nt as to the yields and prices on which tin* several crops nuiy he 
 cxpti'ted to he stahili/.ed in the future has in some cases heen substituted, 
 the procedure followed depeiulin*: on the economic outlook for ea<'h 
 particular crop. In this way an ••iTort has hcf'u nuide to ascertain, for 
 the principal crops irrown in the upper San .Ioa<|uin N'alley. the ••xtent 
 to which the farm income may he expected to cxcee«l the cost of the 
 iteins, other than irrigation water, which make up the cost of producing; 
 and harvestinir the i-nip 
 
 ( )hviously. all of this r\ii-s> .ii">\>- l.nin i<.^i> i^ iM>i ^ivailahle f«tr 
 jiayinir for irri^'atiou water if the farm is to he a sm-ccssful husiness 
 enterprise. The enterpri.Me certaiidy would not hr considered satis- 
 factory if. in addition to tin* costs of product i«»n and harvestinir. interest 
 coidd not b«» paid on the farm iiivestmetit. The jimount necessairy for 
 this has th«'r«'fore l)»'«'n indicated in the <'as«' of «>a«'h crop, usin^' a rate 
 of 6 prr cent per annum. The remainder left after paying intorest 
 represents that available for meetin>r the cost of irrii;ation water and for 
 profits ahove interest. 
 
 I low nnn-h of this firud margin alxtvc costs and interest the Innd- 
 ••wners can pay for irriu'ation water is larijely a matti>r of individinil 
 or colltM'tive judirment. Althouirh conclusif)ns reirardinir this have Im'ch 
 reached, the essential available facts luive been presented in sut-h form 
 as will assist tlmse w ho^e judirment is difTerent to n-ach their own 
 conclusions. It is <|uite possible many farmers woidd Im> wijlinu to pay 
 for irri^ration water to the full extent of the amount remainini; after 
 fneetintr all cfists of itr'xlucf ion and harvrsfinir. together with intep'st at 
 »i per cent per annum. an«l sf»me prolnddy wouhl Iw willini; to pay more 
 in order to save existintr investments. The attitude of the landownem 
 as to what thev are willinu' to pay has not. however, h«Tn ronMidere<l in 
 th«' investiiration. althouirh it in realized this tiitimafely will Ix' a nwijor 
 
 fffi'tfti* ifi Mw f ki'i il il *• til 
 
 Procedure in Gathering 0at4 
 
 Airriculture in the four count ii*s of the upper San .loa<|uin Valley 
 is highly cliversiHed. The crops irrown inehide nearly all of the*** ftiiind 
 in California, except a few of tl ' ' d fruits ami hi. me of the 
 
 important truck crops not yet • establisheil in the area. 
 
 From the standpoint •)f invi-^tment ami i;rc»sM n'turuH \ter new. ri!ni?» 
 fruits head the list, hut the area is a favorabli' one for other en»|M« at 
 |>n'-ent viehlinir a relatively hiirh return |mt mre. mieh as Km|>oror 
 (jrrapes, early shippinj? vari«''i''s nf i»r;M>«> j<'1'J iMJifln-s jind f.Trl\ truck 
 
20 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 crops. Aloiiji' with these crops, of course, fjo otliers <;enerally yielding 
 ,^ a loAvcu- jrross income, such as the more common varieties of grapes, 
 
 deciduous fruits, alfalfa, cotton, grain, ntid miscellaneous field crops. 
 The first step in the ]iresent study was to assemble or gather for the 
 more repi-esentativc or more important crops grown in the areas the 
 following data : 
 
 1. Cost of producing and harvesting the crop, not including the cost 
 of irrigation water or interest on the farm investment. 
 
 2. The usual range of yield and price. 
 
 I 8. PrescMit irrigation water costs, including both gravity and pumped 
 
 supplies. 
 
 4. The general ada|)tability of tlic ci-o]) to tbe laiuls of the area, and 
 the outlook. 
 
 Cofffs of Producfimi. — These have been obtained most largely from the 
 Agricultural Extension Service of the College of Agriculture, but also 
 from the Farm Management Section of the College of Agriculture 
 ami directly fi-om a large iiumber of growers; also, in the ease of citrus 
 fruits, from the California Citrus Ijeague. Information obtained from 
 liu' Agricultural K.xteiisiou Sei-vice was gathered by the county farm 
 advisors in connection with their enterpri.se efficiency studies. 
 
 In collecting their records the county farm advisors selected grower 
 eoo]ierators whom they sui)plie(l with the necessary blaidvs and who 
 subuutted monthly reports of all costs for both labor and materials. The 
 data in these records have been retabulated in order to eliminate 
 interest on the investment and costs of ii-rigation water, the latter 
 including assessments, water tolls, interest and d(>prtM'iation on pumi>ing 
 eciuipment, or one or more of these items. 
 
 Infornuition supplied by the Farm Management Section is in the 
 form of general figures- and represents its conclusions as to production 
 costs from long observation and field study. The material supi^lied by 
 the Califoi-nia Citrus League was obtaineil by that organization throuuh 
 personal interviews with growers over a four-year period. 
 
 Yields (iiid Prices. — The enterprise efhciency studies of the Agricultural 
 Extension Service show both yields and i)rices. and its figures, as well 
 as others gathered from packing houses and other sources, have been 
 used to arrive at a range within which variation nuiy normally occur. 
 The ranges taken into considei-at ion in this i-e])()i-t do not include either 
 maximum or minimuin figures, but arc sufficiently wide to cover the 
 usual cases. Tlif lower figures riipresent conditions under which the 
 cost of production is greater than the iiu'ome, while the higher figui'cs 
 i-epresent \i<'lds and pi'ices well above the a\'eT-age. but not excei)t ional. 
 
 Present Itr'ujdlion Wdivr Cosls. — Except in the case of irrigation dis- 
 tricts, for which information is on file in the (tfliee of the State Engiiu^er, 
 present irrij.'at ion water costs have been obtained through field investi- 
 gation. In the ease of eom])anies, it has been usual to obtain desired 
 i-ecords from the secretaries and supei-intejuients. Where desired 
 inforination was not on record in the office of the companies, the l)est 
 estimates po.ssible were obtained. A nuijorily of the companies furnish 
 
PERMISSIHI.K IKKHiATlON r|(Ai«ih>^ '2\ 
 
 niHinly };ravity \v«t«M-, hut iiiuNt iuos\ of the gravity systoins Miipplo- 
 mental piinipini; l>y th«' indivitiual ImiuIowthts is tlu« \\s\u\\ practiiT. 
 ami it lias not hUvjivs I)«m»u possiMo t<t arrivr at a satisfai'tnry fi^'un- (tf 
 total cfwts to th«' faniuT. Costs uinifr puinpin^r systems luiv*- Ix-i-n 
 obtaiiiiHl by comhiniiij; power posts with iiittn'st, ilepreriatioTi aii<l taxes 
 on the wells aiitl |>uinpin^ r(piipnient. power ehar;;es lieinj; furnished 
 hy the |)owcr coiiipjiiiics supplyiti^r I hi* servi«'e. The iiJve>titralioiis of 
 preMMit water costs have ineluded alt of the aetive irri^atiou <listriets 
 in the foothill belt an<l most of the eompanies supply iu«r irrigation 
 water in the three up|)er counties of San .loaipiin \'allev. as well as 
 indiviilual pumpinir plants oti 44 hohlinjrs. The latter, however, repre- 
 sents hut a small pcrccntaire '»f the total ninnber of irritration pumpiujr 
 plants in Fresno. Tulare. Kin^rs. an*l Kern counties and can ojily he 
 considered as examples taken more or less at random. 
 
 Althouffh th»' complete <lata i;athere«l re<.'ardiun present irritration 
 e<)st.s are set forth in Chapter \'lll. fre«pient r«'ference to the material 
 is m;ide ill uthiT I'liaptcrs 
 
 Basis on WhicH Costs of Production Have Been Computed. 
 
 There is n«)t always airreement as to what items shnidd be included 
 in tletermininjr costs of proihicinjr farm crops. The practice of faiin 
 nianairemt'iit spe<Malists has been followed in the main. and. in addition 
 to lal>or and materials, the fidlowin^' have been included : 
 
 Di'preciation on improvement.s. other than dwellin^jrs an<l irri^'ation 
 wells; depreciation on eipiipment. other than pum|>in^' plants; depre- 
 ciation on pernianent plantinirs; taxe> and insurance, and an allowance 
 for treneral expens«'s amounting' to fntm .'» to !<• per cent of the costs 
 of all labor ami materials u.s<>d. 
 
 The cost of irrijration water has not bei-n include<l. .since determina- 
 tion of that item lias b«'en the purpose of the impiiry. nor has interest 
 on the farm investment Immmi consitlered as part of the cost of |m-o- 
 •luetion. The am«»unt needed to cover the latter has l>een stated. 
 however, for each iTop eon«i<lered. 
 
 The position is not taken in this report thai iiit< rest on the farm 
 investment is not a le;ritimate item in the cost f)f pr«Mlucinir a farm 
 crop. It may or may not be earned, however, and if not earned can not 
 be paid. Since it obviously eonies. if at all. after other costM are paid 
 and sifu'c many farm eiiterprisi-s continue in operation year after year 
 witlif»ut returnini; any "net" above the actual cash outlay, the lalxir 
 income to the «»p«'rator an«l depre<'iation. the prfK'C«ltire of determinim; 
 reasftnable chartr«*ji for irriKati«)n water on the ba>ns of cost <»f pro- 
 duction and farm incf»me is si- ' d by b'avinjr inter»^t out of that 
 cost. As prcN'-"-'^ stated, hi -■ ■ ;. thi' |i''''^«MtatiiiMs wlm-li fnllnM, 
 show what is i, ly to cover interest 
 
 Anions (»ther items not includeij is interest on workin»r capital, 
 whether owned or Ixirrowed This i • Ily at iry part of 
 
 the cost of pHMluction. but farm n... ...^ .. ut reci : . :•) not «'us- 
 
 toMiarily include it and no satisfactory basis is nvnilabie ff»r <leterminin>r 
 or ••stimatinu what would \t*' pro|M«r figures to us4v 
 
 The custom of ineludin;? an in the e<»si of prrxluetion ff»r 
 
 the Usual jjoinir watre for the t; .. ;.. owner or o|M>rator ilevot«*d to 
 
 the farmiii'* operations lias been followed. This means that the actual 
 
22 DIVISION- OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 cash oiithiy may he less tliaii tlu' cost ^ivcii. Xo allowaiiec has been 
 ^ made for supcriiitcinlciice by the individual farm operator, the inclusion 
 
 of this not bein<r usual in such siudies. 
 
 The rate of (lepreeiation of plantinus is an item on ■which there is not 
 always an a<ireement aiiioii^' students of farm maiuij;emeiit. The A<:ri- 
 cultural Extension Service assumed a life of 40 years * for citrus trees 
 and has written otf depreciation of the trees at the rate of $31 an acre 
 each year. Ix'tiinuiu^^ with the tenth \('ar.t They further assumed a cost 
 of approxinuitelx' $1,000 an acre, exclusive of laud, for briu<i-in<i' a citrus 
 jrrove to ten years of age, this beinji' the net cost after creditinji income. 
 These fijjures have been accepted in this study of i-easonable irrigation 
 I charut's for citrus fru.its in the uppei- San Joa(|uin \'alley, altlioujjh it 
 
 is known that in some cases the life of citrus ^'roves is considerably 
 more or less than 40 years and that there is considerable variation in 
 the cost of grrowino: the trees. Depreciation of citrus trees at the rate 
 of $31 an acre is one of the lar^e items in the cost of ])roduction of that 
 crop and in practice mi<>ht not be justified. 
 
 Dei)reciation of im])rovements and eciuipinent has been com])uted by 
 tlic farm advisoi-s lar<|-ely on tlic basis of the owners' estimates of 
 present value and lenytli of life. Theii- fi<zui'('s have been accepted for 
 theii' records. Where costs have been detei'iniued throuj^h direct con- 
 tact with growers, rathei- than from data pathered by others, deprecia- 
 tion has been com])uted at the following' rates: 
 
 IJiiildiufi's, f) i)er cent ; irri.uation pipelines, 4 pw cent, and farm 
 ecpiipmeiit, lo per cent. 
 
 This repoi't of course is not dii-ectly concerned with farm profits, 
 excepting as interest may be considered in that catefrory, as it is by 
 some, and excepting- as they determine broadly the economic condition 
 of any i)articular branch of a<i-ri('ulture and thus fix the general scale 
 of production expenditures, including the expenditure for irrigation 
 ^\a1(■l•. Incidentally, however, the tables and cliarts which follow are 
 so set up as to indicate profits wit liin the yield and ])rice ranges used 
 when income is large enough to return a profit. 
 
 Correlation of Cost of Irrigation Water With Other Production Costs. 
 
 While it has not been usual in economic and engineering studies to 
 attempt to show any relationship between costs of ii'i'igation water and 
 other farming costs, ihe roniiei- ^-onietimes lia\'e been expressed in the 
 past as pei'centages of the Liross I'arm ijicoiue and in othei- cases as i)(>r- 
 ceiitages of the net farm income. There is some justification for such 
 an attempted correlation because, i)roadly speaking, the amount that 
 reasonably can be paid for ii'rigation water is determined by the \alue 
 of the |)roducts grown and by the pi'ofits to the grower. The chief 
 difticiilty in attempting such a correlation, howevei-, is found in the 
 wide varialion in harxcsl costs. At aii\ i-a)e. it was felt that the numbei' 
 
 • Sliifp romplftldii <.r ihc I'liinimtiitliiiis for this i-f|H)fi ilic Aj;ri<'ull ur;il lOxti'iision 
 Sorvlcp lins I'Xti'iulcfl lli<- nsstmicil llf<' of <)|-;niK<' Rrovt-s in tlio Tlllart^ <Mlnis belt to i-t 
 yi-arx to lonrorin tf> ItH af'siiiiiption.s ff)r soiitiicrn Ciilifoi'iiin. Tlii.«, however, would 
 not iiiiili-rliillv altiT till- liKures in Ihf rei)oi-l. 
 
 t II \f>y lifiii sii"U''Hleil that till- prefornhle nroccduri' fm- cuniiinl iiiu ilrpri'i-ial ion is 
 llic "slnklnii fnn<r' Jnst.'ail of tlir ".'^trainlit -line" method. Since tlu' .^iiiKinp; fnnd 
 d«>IMif.|l and lnliTi-.«l i<u the I'litlic hnesl nieiit lojjcther do not \a r.v widely from the 
 HlraJKlit-IInc- depri-eiat ion and Inten-st on "ax'Taue in\estn\ent," and since the latter 
 mcthoil Is arlopti-d In all of the .ARrieultnral lOxten.^lon .Service records used, it is 
 i.'Hed In this report. 
 
 / 
 
l'KK.MI>Slill.i: IKXIiiATloN < |IAI<iil> 
 
 •J.l 
 
 of «'XMmpli'N Hvailahlr in tin- pivsrut ^tu^ly whs not stifth-icnt to justify 
 iittiMnptinu MU'h a rorrt'lation. WIhmi available data p«Tinittft|. Iiow- 
 rvrr, tlu' fost of irrii:ati<»n wattT has JMrn rxprt'ssfd as a |t«'rr<>ntauf <»f 
 prt'liarvt'st labor ami inati'rial t-osts. siniM'. for any ^'ivrn rrop and for 
 any .stan«lard of i*nltnral prartirr. thf latttT art* ^rnrrally ind«'p<'tidrnt 
 of otluT fartors. Oidy in tin* i-as*' of citrus fruits has this bn-n done. 
 
 Crops Considered in the Study. 
 
 As [iroviously imlicati'd. tlu- a;rrit-ulturt' <»f tin- upp«'r San .loaquin 
 Valby is highly divrrsititMl. but it lias MM-nird ni'ithiT ni'crssary nor 
 tiesirablr to attempt in this study to covor hII of tlw t-rops. What has 
 Ihm'H don«' has Immmi to consider those crops r»r ;;rotips of iTops which 
 represent the principal brancht's of production. These are citrus fruits, 
 deciduous fruits. ^ra|>es. ^rain. cotton, alfalfa, and miscellaneous field 
 crops. 
 
I 
 
 24 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 ^ CHAPTER III 
 
 CITRUS FRUITS 
 
 Costs of Production. 
 
 The citrus area of the San Joaquin Valley, srenerally referred to as 
 the interior citrus area or the Tulare citrus belt, extends south along 
 the eastern plains and foothills from the vicinity of Kinfrs River 
 t]irou«rh Fresno, Tulare, and Kern counties to Edison, a few miles east 
 of lUdvcrsfield. and out onto the vallev floor in Fresno County near 
 I Dinuba and Reedley. The citrus belt is not continuous, excepting most 
 
 f of the Avay along the belt in Tulare County. The present study covered 
 
 groves near Orange Cove and Reedley in Fresno County; near Exeter, 
 Lindsay, Stratlmiore, }*orterville. Terra Bella, and Ducor in Tulare 
 County, and at Edison in Kern County. 
 f Including fourteen cost-of-production records prepared by the 
 
 assistant farm advisor of Tulare County, data Avere obtained directly 
 fi-om 22 individual groves and one group of groves containing 129 acres. 
 The total area rei)resented by these 23 records was 504 acres, of which 
 250 acres were in Washington Navel oranges. 125 acres in Valencias, 
 and 129 in Xavels and Valencias. unsegregated. This is. of course, 
 oidy a small percentage of tlie total citrus area in the San Joaquin 
 Valley. In addition, a four-year record was supplied by the California 
 Citrus League, this covering the co.st of production for Xavels on 
 approximately 100 groves, representing an area of frnm 2500 to 8000 
 acres each year. 
 
 Of the 39,000 acres now in citrus plantings in the Fresno-Tulare- 
 Kern area, more than 60 per cent is in Xavels and about 30 per cent 
 in Valencias. P>ecause of tliis ])re]>onderance of X'avels. and further 
 because, for the })ur])Oses of this report, differences between production 
 costs of the two varieties do not a])pear to be significant, X'avels have 
 been chiefly considered in this study and the conclusions reached are 
 based largely on that crop. Valencias entail an additional cost for 
 frost protection which, although considered desirable for Xavels to an 
 extent that will i)ermit prolonging the harvest into the frost season, 
 is not usually practiced with this variety. However, as will a])pear 
 later, the tt-ndeney towai-d jiartial frost i)roteetion in the Xavel areas 
 bas inlluenced the deeision as to what may projHU'ly be assumed to be 
 the i)re-harve.st production cost. 
 
 Table 2 has been made up from the cost-of-production data furnished 
 by tlie assistant farm advisor of Ttilat'c County or obtained by the 
 writers during the fieUl en(|uiry. 
 
 it will be noted that, omitting the i-ecords for the three largest acre- 
 ages, the average ])re-harvest co.st shown in the above table is $171.91 
 an aere. Including the three lar'j'cst acreages reduces this to .$l(i7.16 
 an aci'c. There are five records showing pre-harvest costs less than 
 .$150 and one of more than $200. Eliminating these, which are unusual, 
 leaves sevetiteen l)etween $1()() and $200. A\t'i-aging these seventeen 
 records gives $17<).S5. 
 
 The CitiMis Ijcague lecoi-ds for .\a\f| oranges, referred to above, are 
 available for the years 1925, 1!>26. 1927 and 1928. Omitting from the.se 
 
i'l^lKMISSIHI.K IRKKUTION rilAK<il->S *J.') 
 
 ret'ords iti'ins for irri>rHtinn wjitrr hiuI supfrintt'iMlpncp,* nrithrr of 
 wliirli is itu'ludttl in tin* costs listed in Tnblt* 2, but juldin^r the Hnnio 
 Hinount for (l«'pn*rijiti<tn of tr«*«'s that is allow(><l in ThI)U' 2. jjiv«'s a 
 ranj.'«' in avi»rajr»' prt-liarvrst costs, not in»'luilinir interest or irrifratioii 
 water, of from $lsr).(;;; to $'J()4.S."» an aere. with a mean of $ l!>2.."{l).f 
 
 The ilitTereiu-*' between tlic cost of production, as shown in Table 2. 
 and the costs obtained by the Citrus Loajruc is not sipnifieant in view 
 of the birj;c number of variabU- items enterin^r into records of this kind. 
 The h»wer avera^re costs obtained from the enterjjrise efticieney studies 
 of the Agricultural Kxtension Service and from the records obtained in 
 the field, while probably sid)stantially correct for the particular growers 
 involved, presiunably are not nearly as representative of the whole 
 citrus industry of tin* Tulare Fresno-Kern belt as is the averntre of the 
 records obtained by the Citrus Lea^'ue. This is perhaps maiidy due to 
 the larger ninnber of the latter and to the further fact that an attempt 
 was made by the Citrus League to incbide the different grades of groves 
 in approxiniately the same jiroportion as they o<'eur in the field. Vari- 
 ous other suggestions have been advancecl as to the reason for the 
 differenci's in the two sets of figures, but. as a matter of fact, the figures 
 obtained from the several difT«'rent sources are of the same general 
 order or class and the eli(»iee of which to accept becomes maiidy a matter 
 of the degree of conservatism that is to govern conclusions. 
 
 There is a general tendeiu'y in the Ttdare citrus ind>i.stry toward 
 b«»tter cultural metlinds. and the use of additional fertilizers is beintr 
 strongly reconunenrled. Furthermore, there is a feeling in the industry 
 in this area that in ord'*r to pernnt more orderly marketitig of the 
 Navel crop, frost protection must be pr<»vided for at least a portion 
 of the Navel area instead of harvesting it all before the frost period of 
 early winter. The tendency is thus toward increasing instea<l of 
 decreasing the cost of pro4luefion. Hearing these facts in mind it has 
 b«>en thought proper, on the bjisis of cost-of-pnxliu'tion figures 
 presente«l. to a.ssume a preharvest cost for Navel oranges in the 
 Tulare citru.s belt of ^^IIK) an acre. ex«dusivc of interest and the cost 
 of irrigation water, and hereafter, in this report, that figtire will be 
 us«m1. 
 
 In (»r<ler to determine the difTeren<*<' iM'tweeu the income to the 
 gr«»wers and their total cost, it is n«res.sary to a<ld to the pre-harvest 
 coKt the cost of picking anti haulint; to the packing hou.ses. Harvest 
 cc».ts of citrtis fruits obvifuisly iiu-rease with increase in yields. There 
 was a general agre<Mnent in the field that, for the purpo»«>s of this 
 stu<ly. these costs, including picking and delivering to the packing 
 house, may l>e taken to be 24 cents a packe<l l>ox.§ I'sing this figure 
 
 • Mr K II WnUwhUlviT, ■M'raiarv of iha falirornUi ('lirtin l<oa«uo. mtmtim thin 
 
 ' ■ ' ' r work In iiu|>rrvliUnc rnnrh 
 
 ' Tl ■ 
 
 WM 14 r 
 
 '" ' .i\ .T'^i •i«'i'»iii«ii'rti»'wri»-wifrtnr«niiir', tT 
 
 I" « r» '>. 
 
 the avrnic*. l^la w«r* not aTattjibl* for comTting for hich and 
 
26 
 
 DIVISION" OK WATHK KESOURC'ES 
 
 u 
 
 an 
 < 
 
 o 
 tt. 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 u 
 OC 
 u> 
 H 
 Z 
 
 z 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 < 
 
 U 
 U 
 
 U Q 
 
 z 
 
 < 
 
 O 
 
 .J 
 
 < 
 
 X 
 
 H 
 Z 
 
 O 
 
 u 
 z 
 
 u 
 
 :i: 
 
 Q 
 Z 
 < 
 
 a: 
 
 < 
 
 D 
 
 d 
 z 
 
 lb 
 
 12 
 
 < H 
 Ok 
 
 ^ < 
 
 if 
 
 u 
 
 Q 
 
 O 
 ex: 
 
 u. 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 a: 
 
 o 
 
 <: 
 
 OS 
 u 
 
 0. 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 < = 
 UJ _ 
 >- = 
 
 I z 
 
 < -£ 
 u - 
 
 a ■; 
 
 < 1 
 
 < Q. 
 
 O H 
 
 UJ ? 
 
 H ^ 
 
 < 5. 
 
 u " 
 
 < ir 
 
 U •- 
 
 * 5 
 
 H .2 
 
 
 
 
 idc»c-*occ!rsc^imo^Dc^a>cDOCj-X) — uD'£>t^c*3 
 
 »C 
 
 
 
 
 .=1-^ 
 
 CC-^ — COC^«CS'^C4CMCC'^CCC^»CCOC^ieOCCC^»'500 
 
 ec 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0, & i_ = c9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *i» w y - rt-2 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 c^Jllll 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o « C. n 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «_ — 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 «oc — o:tcooioO!«^0!«oocccioo^-jeconc^r*0 
 
 •-0 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 Total 
 e-harvest 
 
 cost 
 nd fixed 
 charges 
 
 ccpcr^-iciocco — oi^c — — •--Ti'M-^'^ror'-'^ocr^^ 
 
 
 Ol 
 
 
 ooro-*ccai'^-^rc-x:cc'M — »o-^ooicr^-^'M'<j-'M-^ic 
 
 f^ 
 
 -« 
 
 
 to ic -- CM CO c --C _ .^ t^ CTi r- i^ 1- c^ -^ c; oc »o c» CO CI 00 
 
 ! '-^ 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 _____^_^,, ^, . ^^ 
 
 <^' 
 
 t^f 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 fc « 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 1 
 _l_ 
 
 
 
 
 Oi^»/5-.T-*'-0 — r— — ■^rif3oo»c:cr- — t^ooo^ioo 
 
 i c^» 
 
 
 
 
 c £ g 
 
 n c c 
 
 r- oo iri i^ :c ^ '-c 00 — « O cc »c cr. c 1 c^. --C or -^ t^ -^ 'M 
 
 oo 
 
 
 
 
 ««#* „#— *^ ^ « ^_ 
 
 1 vs» 
 
 
 
 
 & «■ u 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 _o t* & 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <^ " 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o--C<NCT>co(M!£;u:) — or^eciftOOJ^N-^C^OOOOa 
 
 oo 
 
 
 
 
 -a a, 
 
 otor^ooos^ciC'iooot-^ccocC'^i-^Oi-iOwsooo 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 c S 
 
 ■<r&sr^osooro»c^r^tor^oo-t'cc(Mocoooor^oo-^irc 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 
 
 ct C 
 
 M> ^ — 
 
 «t 
 
 
 
 
 axes 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 E-- = 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OiOOOOO»«Ot^OOOI~^C^COOO'^OOcOiO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 »c»0(M oo oo oo^eo CO ot^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 »-" r-.-<r -rci c-i lO cc o t* tt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 a. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 w» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■-3 
 
 !^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■§ 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 D. 
 
 ^ 
 
 r-»/scMOOro50»coior-os-w<ioccOMC»ooooio 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 oc--tcoic»oor.t--^'M40iooooi»— ■(f'OCM^iM r* 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 E 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 (M (TJ CC C-i CM (M C^* CO CM CM <-• C^l CM « CC OI — ■* 
 
 v.* ^ 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 OOOitor^r^tMcciCicciOJ'^^O'-'^ooccooo 
 
 ~r^ 
 
 
 
 
 ■*.» 
 
 O -* O o Oi o: o c^i t^ CM -,* 00 ci o c^» r? t-- -«r o o -r- :r: 
 
 oc 
 
 
 
 
 rves 
 and 
 ials 
 
 tr t^ ifi ft ^' "^ ^ •:£:. (T. -^ !j: G 7^ •-::> cr- -^ 'f ^ vr7 ij^ c^t t^ 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 
 
 »— < OS :d 1^ — ' --f — »c CM C] ro c*! c*i c-i -^ — -J" CO C ro 3i r^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^feS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «fr 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 i-S 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c» — 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 8§S§=5s§Sg§Si§=S£§tgggi 
 
 r- 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 ec»ch-oi— oiOiCor^oO^oooO'^c-JM'TfOOOO' 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 «^0 — ' ^ — ^ c^ ^ ^ ^ — •— CM CC CJ 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 1- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •*f. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C! 
 
 
 
 
 
 k. 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «« 
 
 
 "S 
 
 
 
 i i : 
 
 t 
 
 1 1 1 1 < 1 t 1 1 1 t 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 k. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 U* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ii : 
 
 
 ■ •:z 
 
 1 
 
 
 ' 1 1 1 1 1 
 1 1 1 1 1 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 I c ' ' ■ c 
 
 
 
 
 
 'e 
 
 
 
 I^ Ji* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 •"a « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; > > 
 
 
 
 0. 
 
 ftT 
 
 
 
 ■■o ! 
 
 .T3 
 
 
 
 b 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 i^B 
 
 • : 'g 
 
 
 Ms i ;. 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 rte8rt«rt«rtflertrtn(*rtrt?3rtrtrt«e9««t 
 
 1 V'. X > X. >: >^ s-f. x. V'. X. >'. X. >'. X y. >r x. x >'. > x >r c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ll 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •gB 
 
 
 
 
 
 oS =■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 •s 
 
 
 
 <9 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CS 
 
 
 
 ja 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 » 
 
 i: 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 a 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 k; 
 
 
 If- 
 
 > 
 
 e 
 
 a 
 
 c 
 
 4-* 
 
 01 
 
 b 
 
 
 ■^ ^ 
 
 u 
 
 &. 
 
 y^^ 
 
 c 
 
 .c 
 
 2^ 
 
 Ti 
 
 "o 
 
 c = 
 
 u 
 
 ? 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 ^1 
 
 X. 
 
 0) 
 
IT.RMISSim.K IRKHiATION < IIAK«if>< -'< 
 
 Hiiii a pri*-harvrst ccwt of $1'.H) hii hcit. Tiihli* 'A has lM'«'n pn-parfil t«» 
 show tht* total i*ost. ilflivon'tl at tlu* pai'kiujr lioiiso. for yi«'l<ls of .'»<> to 
 'MM) \mv\i*'*\ hiixi's ail acn*. yi^Ms nhovr aii«l Im*Io\\ this raup' not hrin^' 
 fonsith-ri'tl of iinportatirc in this study. 
 
 TABLb 3 
 
 a\»r\i;k cost pjr a« hi «>» rH«»iH( in». \sn m\hmsiin(. nwm »>h\s(.is in 
 
 KHISNO, TULARl- ANI> Kl HN l lU M IJ S. SI ( .HI ( .A I I I) A<l()Hl)lN(. r»> VII Ll> 
 Pr^tMi-rort eort of produetKm Ukrn »l tlW an acrv: Hwntinc fi(umJ kl 24 cmu • p*^**! (>■>* 
 
 YirU in imrktd 
 
 AvrrsfT fort 
 
 Ft- 
 
 .n |>»-knl 
 
 krm*r ..-i 
 
 bosn prr mm 
 
 irr »frr 
 
 r botn 
 
 irt »cfr 
 
 l«^ ■nr 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 S<) 
 
 1 
 
 .1«) 
 
 J-iH 
 
 74 
 
 KM 
 
 1 
 
 ( 
 
 .' .' *' 
 
 .'44 
 
 100 
 
 214 
 
 
 ..■,'1 
 
 iiO 
 
 135 
 
 330 
 
 
 .TS 
 
 iJW 
 
 150 
 
 23« 
 
 
 300 
 
 >.* 
 
 I7» 
 
 m 
 
 L 
 
 
 
 Yields and Pricet of Navel Oranges. 
 
 Tlu' yirltl to hi' i'xp«'ft«'«| from tlu' avrrai^r jrrovfs ami tin* pricr it is 
 reasonable to count on ovit a period of years are both matters about 
 whirh there may !>♦' ilisairnfmenf . It is neers.sjiry nevertlielts.s in this 
 stiuly to make detinite a.s.sumption.s for eaeh. This has been done on 
 the basis <)f th«' data pres"iited in Tables 4 to 7. the adviee of the farm 
 advisor and assistant farm advi-or of Tulare County and the Ajrri- 
 eultural (>uthM>k for VJW publishe«| by the Atrrieiiltiiral Kxperimeut 
 Station. 
 
 1 \m.h 4 
 
 AVbRACt YItLO PbR ACRI IS PA( KUD BtlXES OF NAVfcL ()RANc;ES IN 
 TULARE. FRESNO AND KERN COUNTIES. I«»22-|927 
 
 1«32 "-• '1 
 
 \m 
 
 1«34 
 
 193S • ' 
 
 IK* « 
 
 i»r 
 
 im ' < 
 
 A«m«* '■ ^o < 
 
 Avtbont). ('•hlaruM Citrm U-*cu« 
 
 YUlil. — If the data in Table .'i cMiii'd be weitrhted to make them fully 
 repr«>M'>ntativf of the entire Tulare eitru- Im-U. they miirht furnish satis, 
 faetory fiu'ures jis fi> yi«ld, prie«'s. hiuI return per a«'re to usi- in this 
 study. Sinc«' only a portion of the eitriis an-a is itielud<-d and sinee the 
 arras* repniwiiti"*! by the various paekin^ h<»usi«s are not prop<»rtionate 
 fo the total areas where conditifuiji are Mimilar. •■ueh weight inir is not 
 p«.^ ' ' '" * ' ."». then'fori'. really l>eromeN a tabulation of rxniiu ' 
 
 jr»<_; , but not numerically represi-ntativr Table fi s| 
 
 variations n<«eur imt merely lietweefi ItM'nlities hut Wtween iiidiviflual 
 (m»w»Ts. 
 
 The b«-' '"T .Na\ii "M iK- lho«.r ||i>iii 
 
 the Calif* ii... I ,:...■.,. . ;. .-e pr<*?«rntiil i; . !'• 4 and w hieh 
 
 show an average for the years 1022 to 1!»2S of i:tM 4 paeketl boxi's jwr 
 
28 
 
 DIVISION OF WATER KESOUKCES 
 
 
 u 
 
 OQ t/) 
 
 
 c 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 f 
 
 c 
 
 
 U 
 
 ^ 
 
 5^ 
 
 n 
 
 CJ 
 
 1 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 C- 
 
 w 
 
 
 o 
 
 1-4 
 
 
 .s 
 
 "—^ 
 
 
 a> 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 r) 
 
 
 
 
 
 &. 
 
 
 
 S>o 1 
 
 
 J3 
 
 
 
 or) 
 
 
 C£ 
 
 d 
 
 f! 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 CJ 
 
 
 
 03 
 
 
 
 0- 
 
 5 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ""^ 
 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 c 
 
 ;5 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dh 
 
 30 1 
 
 
 oco 1 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 z 
 
 
 y. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Oj 
 
 
 
 
 
 Pl, 
 
 
 r* 
 
 
 0"5 1 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 iC 
 
 Oh 
 
 
 OiO 1 
 
 
 JS 
 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 .s 
 
 c 
 55 
 
 
 
 CJ 
 
 
 
 
 &-1 
 
 300 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 j: 
 
 
 
 e<5 
 
 
 bC 
 
 c 
 '-2 
 
 d 
 
 ^ 
 
 s 
 
 C' 
 
 0- 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 a, 
 
 r: 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ja 
 
 — 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 M 
 
 d 
 
 ?=. 
 
 j^ 
 
 X. 
 
 Si 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C-. 
 
 30 
 
 
 OCC 
 
 
 .X3 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 12 
 
 d 
 
 ^ 
 
 (£ 
 
 3 
 O 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 k. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «j 
 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 a 
 S 
 
 K 
 O 
 
 9 
 
 t--coos^i^^^»oco 
 
 iftCO»0 50t.C05t^'^ 
 
 -^ OCl ^ x> 
 
 ' »— " CO CO -^ t'- -^ oo 
 
 lOOOOOCOCO 
 
 1 1-« eq o t^ -^ CO 
 
 • C4 ^ O O 00 
 
 O^ ^ A OB O) O^ Oi c 
 
 l§ 
 
 1 f 1 ' ■"(f OP ^ C^ CO 
 I 1 1 ■ -^ Oi — 00 CI 
 
 1 J j 1 CI c-a CO <M CO 
 
 1 . . 1 — -<* to -XJ QC 
 , , , 1 ^ CO Cjn »C 00 
 
 < 1 t , c^ (M ^ ^ ^ 
 
 ' " 1 1 «> 
 
 oo -^ lO c^i o tc '^ cr. ' 
 
 O OO «-- ^ O OS CO -XI 1 
 CO -^ ^ C^ <N <N CO C^ 1 
 
 ^ -<j* 00 o oo OS r* CO ' 
 
 00 lOCM OCOOCO CO 1 
 CM.-H^C^MCOCO'M 1 
 
 I I I I loscoo ! 
 
 1 t* OS ■* O ^ OS o; (M 
 ; 00 M CO 00 CO — o u: 
 
 <^»-H(MMCOCCCO^ 
 
 1 1 CO CO r^ OS OS t^ CO 
 
 ' ' CI OOCM O -* tM CI 
 , > *-< ^ C^ C^ (M C^ CO 
 
 'WS-^fifl^OOSI^OCO 
 
 .»r5»f5cc*^uo— -osr^ 
 
 t ^ — ' CJ C-» CJ CO CJ CO 
 
 I I iRS^oe^ci 
 
 , 1 1 ^^ C4 N CI CI CO 
 
 t . .C* C4CICI CO ' 
 
 i! ! i M ! i 1 
 
 t ' 
 
 — ClfO-^iftcOt^OOOa 
 
 CbOsaiO»0»OsOlOSO> 
 
 
 $164 92 
 
 208 36 
 217 79 
 210 31 
 183 08 
 
 
 1 t 1 ' OSO O fO OS 
 
 1 t . . o U7 t^ r^ O 
 
 1 1 . . cs Oi OS r- 'O 
 
 
 cir^cicocioou^ 
 
 r- to CI -f --C CO -o 'O 
 
 ^ ^ -x; -*•«*■ :c ift X! ' 
 
 ic r- »c o CO. -o 0-. :o • 
 
 C1^ — COCO-<T'«»'CO ' 
 MP 
 
 
 t* iC CI 1-^ 00 CO OS lO 1 
 
 r^ 00 c) '^ 1/5 oo -^ o- . 
 
 — CI -<*■ CJ -O CO >C iC • 
 
 cococo — r-^iO'^'O 
 
 CJ^^COCO-^iO'^ ' 
 
 
 $420 76 
 532 16 
 446 72 
 
 t 
 I 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 < ■^ 1 OseOO OS O ' 
 
 1 O . h- OSon ^ OS 1 
 ' OO .C4 CO r- eO« ' 
 • «♦ ICQ COCOC^ "^ ' 
 
 < 
 
 " ' osd r^ icoooo cj 
 
 ' 1 1^ CO oo O •x^ CO CO 
 
 1 i OtJ- toe o -^ci 
 
 ■ ■ 00 --0 OO C» -Xi »C CI 
 , i «»— . ^ ^ CJ CJCI 
 
 
 1 . 1 t-^OO iC -^ IC 
 
 1 1 t too oso r* CO 
 I I I I-voococooo 
 
 ■ ' ' ' COCJ O CO c» 
 
 ■ . . 1 ^ ^^Cl CJ d 
 
 1 1 1 1 
 1 1 1 1 
 
 
 t 1 .e< CI CD oco — 
 
 1 i 1 O) CO O — CI iC 
 1 t ■ C» -^ CO 00 — 1-- 
 
 ■ , i o to r^ C5 o — 
 
 I t t CO CO CJ ■^ -^ CO 
 
 ■ 1 I «* 
 
 
 $219 37 
 335 69 
 349 71 
 436 13 
 136 10 
 
 
 '^CICO'^^cO^-OOOs 
 
 cic«cicicic»cicic* 
 
 OSOiOsCiOSOsOsOiO'. 
 
 > 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
I'KRMlSSim.K IRHUSATION rM.M{<ii:s 
 
 •JM 
 
 TAHLK b 
 
 VARIATION IN YII I H OF NAVI I OHANt.lS. AS SHOWN HV Till rMonU( TION 
 
 RKOROS Ol r\NO I'AtKINi; lk)USIS IN Tin; rULAHI. CURL'S BLLT 
 
 AND BY Rl CORIXS H>R ALL CALIFlWNIA CITRUS LOCALITIES 
 
 RftOC* in rWU. paeknl bciet prr kcr* 
 
 '.' . SO 
 I 
 
 MUMdOTW. 
 
 > TWw |K« kiin hnuw i Bf* in arcM of dirtinct wstfT •horUf r. 
 for !«• th • ^ J. 
 
 AuU. Lngur. 
 
 PMklacWMM 
 
 PMUathoiM 
 
 CkVarate 
 
 So. 1' 
 
 No. J' 
 
 CilriM 
 
 um-wx) 
 
 (IW5-1W9) 
 
 I.MCU* 
 
 • < 
 
 
 u 
 
 10 
 
 
 23 
 
 11 
 
 10 
 
 42 
 
 10 
 
 ft 
 
 M 
 
 8 
 
 
 «l 
 
 •» 
 
 
 n 
 
 1 
 
 
 4» 
 
 
 
 
 48 
 
 
 
 
 48 
 
 
 
 
 2$ 
 
 
 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 
 i; 
 
 
 
 
 IS 
 
 
 
 
 IS 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 iMkinc bouae Na I toinr individ 
 
 u>l rMordi mm 
 
 aiTi'.* Thr I'itrus sp«'i'iali.st Jittaclictl to tin- Tulare County lann 
 a«lvisor*s office* fxprrssrd tin- (ipinioii that, in view of tin* soil and 
 i-liinatic conditions of the aiva. tin- avrrajfe yirld d<M's not <'Ximm'»1 !:{') 
 park«Ml l)oxi's per aiTo. Nvhich is in substantial a;;rei'in«'nt with the 
 Citrus Lcajfue avera^.'*' 
 
 Piut. — As in the cas*' »»1 ynlds. tlie fi^run's for prices jiresente*! in 
 TabU' .') are exainph-s whi«'h show mainly tr«'ojrraphieal (lifTerent'es and 
 ar«' not su.seeptible of bein;; re<lu«ed to satisfaet«»ry avera^res. Chief 
 reliance for price data has therefore been placed on Table 7. made u|» 
 from data supplied by Mr. Harry H. Wellinan of the Avrrieultiirc 
 Kxteiision Service. This table .sljows the averaj;e price received by the 
 California Fruit tin>wers' Kxchan;;*' for N'avel oranges durinjr Novein- 
 Iht. I)eceinlM*r. and .lanuary f«>r the years liH-i-l') to 192H-29 and also 
 the avcrajrc price receivtMl by the j;r«iwers after defluctin^r "0 t'cnts j)cr 
 |»a<-ked box for paekinir ami I'J eeiits per packed box for district an<l 
 central exchantfe charges and for advert isinjf.t The ranjre in average 
 price Is shown to be from 7:J cents to $.'J..'»ri per packed Im)x. with a 
 mean of $2.1!>. This is t>1» cents hi»rher than the jjeneral avi-ra^'c sujj- 
 (.'••sted by several authorities in the tb hi as a safe basis for estimating; 
 the future. How«*ver. sinee the avi-ra^*- is for a relatively lon^f time 
 and extends through iwriiMls of both low and hiffh prices, it is felt 
 acceptance of it as the basis of the estiniaten is jiistiti(>d. 
 
 Income to Citru* Grower* and Amount Availabl* for Water Chargaa. 
 
 IlaviufT reached the conclusion that, for the purpiwu-s of this rep<irt. 
 it is reasonable to assume an averajfe yi»»Id of Navel oranjres of 138 
 packed b<ixes an acre and an average price to the jrrower of $2.1H a 
 
 • It tnik 
 Karl Ix'.'H f 
 
 ••<l Uy on* parkinc houaa at iO r«nta par 
 tho Agiicultural Kslonalnn H^rvtc* lluit 
 
30 
 
 DIVISION' OK \VATKH HKSOURCES 
 
 TABLE 7 
 
 AVERAGE fob. PRICES PER PACKED BOX RECEIVED FOR NAVEL ORANGES IN TULARE 
 CITRUS BELT BY THE CALIFORNIA FRUIT GROWERS EXCHANGE FOR NOVEM- 
 BER. DECEMBER AND JANUARY, 1914-15 TO 1928-29, AND AVERAGE 
 PRICES RECEIVED BY THE GROWERS DURING THE SAME 
 MONTHS AND YEARS 
 
 Aft«r deducting 82 cents 
 
 a packed box to cover packing house, exchange 
 
 and advertising charges 
 
 
 
 F. 0. B. to Exchange 
 
 Price to growers 
 
 
 November 
 
 December 
 
 January- 
 
 November 
 
 December 
 
 Januaiy 
 
 .\ver,igp for 
 Nov., Dec., 
 Jan. 
 
 1914-15 
 
 SI 97 
 2 70 
 2 28 
 
 2 51 
 4 06 
 
 3 32 
 
 3 56 
 
 4 20 
 3 08 
 2 50 
 
 2 99 
 
 3 98 
 
 4 31 
 
 5 18 
 3 72 
 
 $1 34 
 1 77 
 
 1 49 
 3 25 
 3 59 
 3 27 
 
 2 39 
 
 3 36 
 
 2 63 
 1 99 
 
 3 32 
 3 11 
 3 49 
 3 97 
 3 53 
 
 Si 33 
 1 82 
 
 1 60 
 3 71 
 3 09 
 3 64 
 
 2 43 
 
 3 22 
 2 56 
 
 2 15 
 
 3 10 
 3 34 
 3 55 
 3 96 
 3 01 
 
 $1 15 
 1 88 
 1 46 
 
 1 69 
 3 24 
 
 2 50 
 
 2 74 
 
 3 38 
 2 26 
 
 1 68 
 
 2 17 
 
 3 16 
 
 3 49 
 
 4 36 
 2 90 
 
 SO 52 
 95 
 
 67 
 2 43 
 2 77 
 2 45 
 
 1 57 
 
 2 54 
 1 81 
 
 1 17 
 
 2 50 
 2 29 
 
 2 67 
 
 3 15 
 2 71 
 
 $0 51 
 
 1 00 
 
 78 
 
 2 89 
 2 27 
 2 82 
 
 1 61 
 
 2 40 
 1 74 
 
 1 33 
 
 2 28 
 2 52 
 
 2 67 
 
 3 14 
 2 19 
 
 $0 73 
 
 1915-16 
 
 1 28 
 
 1916-17 
 
 97 
 
 1917-18 
 
 2 34 
 
 1918-19 
 
 2 76 
 
 1919-20 -- 
 
 2 59 
 
 1920-21 
 
 1 97 
 
 1921-22 
 
 2 77 
 
 1922-23 . 
 
 1 94 
 
 192.3-24 
 
 1924-25 -- 
 
 1 39 
 
 2 32 
 
 1425-26 -- 
 
 2 66 
 
 1926-27 
 
 2 73 
 
 1927-28 - 
 
 3 55 
 
 1928-29 
 
 2 56 
 
 Meun 
 
 S2 19 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 j)a('kt'(l box durinu' Xoveniher. Deceni1)er. and January, the months 
 of hu-fjest sliipiiR'iit.s. it now becomes necessary to compute or estimate 
 the income to the frrowers and the amount that is a\aihd)lt' for irrij^ration 
 ■water. To assist in this, Tal)h's S nnd !) and IMate I have l)eeii prepared. 
 
 Table S shows the income to growers of Navel oran«res with prices 
 varyin<>' from $1 to $;i.r)() a i)acke(l box an<l witli yields varyin<r fi-om 7)0 
 to .')()() packed boxes an acre. Table 9 shows the income availabh' for 
 j)ayiiit'iit of irrifjation water cliar<>:es, interest on investment, and 
 protits, after payin<:- 1lie pre-liarvest costs of jiroduction at the rate of 
 $!!)() per acre and har\'est costs at the rate of 24 cents a packed box for 
 picking:- and haulin<i- to the packin<:- house. 
 
 I'late 1 ;:raphicaliy presents the income to j^rowers with vary in*? 
 prices and yields and tlie price necessary with certain <riven yii'lds to 
 meet (1) the cost of |)rf)duciii<i and harvest injr Navel oranjics in the 
 Tulare citrus belt, not including- inlei-est on the farm investm<Mit or 
 irrigation watei-; (2; tiie cost of producinjr and harvestinjr includin}; 
 interest on the investment. l)ut not irrijration water, and (8) the income 
 necessary to |)ay any ^MVeii charj^e for irrigation water, or profits, in 
 addition to tlic cdsts (tf production and hai"vestin<r and interest, 
 interest on the iiivestmeid is computed at tlie rate of (i per cent on 
 an averajre xaliiation of $7.")() an <icre, which includes trei's at ^fiOO 
 per aci-c ; laud. .+ ir)(); (Mpiipiiient, $.")(), jind irrifjatioii pip» and other 
 improvciiH'iits. $.')().* 
 
 • The ii\ii;iK<" value of J.'iOO for tin- trees i.s liiilf tin- total a.ssiimed net invtstineiit 
 In carryinK an oranKe grove llirouRli the first ten .vear.s. Interest on the money spent 
 ilnrltiK till- llrpt ten years Is Included In this $1,0(10. TliL-^ llRure Is generally accepted 
 liy aulhorlth'S. 
 
I'KKMISSIIU.K II{|{lt:ATlON < ll.\|{(il> 
 
 31 
 
 ri.ATK I 
 
 • 
 
 D • 
 
 ^' 
 
 *<— ' '*^' y »*' 
 
 -ITT —1 r —11 . 
 
 >3t.i^a« K* tiiac 
 
 3* cot' 
 
 RKl.ATION BF.TWKEN COST OF PRODUCING AND HARVKSTINO NAVEL 
 ORANGES AND FARM INCOME 
 
 T\u' i'urv«i| line All in tlu- chart n-prrsnits tin* i-ost of pnnhnMiiu Jinil 
 harvi'stinjr Nav»l nran^ri's in th<' Tulare ritrus belt, ami tho liiif r/> 
 r**pri'-rnts that cost plu> intrnvst on th«' invrstnjont. liinrs KF. (ill , II. 
 am! Kl. iuilit-atc. in $10 incmntMits. th«* aihiitional cost. ili'ptMiilinu on 
 th«" allowaiuM- for annual \vat«'r fharm-s. or thr n.l.lit l.,ii:.I iiK-onM* 
 UfiMltMl to nuM't any j»iv»»n watrr «*haruf« or profits. 
 
 It will Iw notril from Plate I that with a yiehl of 1;{^ boxes per aere 
 ainl a priee to fh»* ^rrowt-r of $'J.l!* p»T |iaek<Ml box. the rt-lurn |mt acre 
 woiilij pay pre-harvcst eowts of $r.M) an aen*. harvest e<»Mts at 24 cents 
 a packe<l Ih»x. interest at 6 per cent jui an avi'ram* invcstnuMit of $7.'iO 
 an acre. an«l leave $.'{4.10 an acre for irrigation water ami a<l*litional 
 profits over the lalK»r iiu'onie to the o|M'rfltor ami the int« ri>st on the 
 Hv»'rau'e invest n»''!it 
 
 Pr«t«nt Irrigation CottB m lh« Fraano- Tul«r«- K«rn Foothill Ball. 
 
 The citrus areas in the Tulare citrus In'lt are very lartfel\ supplieil 
 with water by puinpint;. partly by irrivration tlistrij't or snuill conipanx 
 systems ami : •' by iixlivitlual pumpiiit; ■' ■• In Chapter VIII 
 the (lata ret' i _ water costs );alheri>«| in ion ilistncts in tlw 
 
 foothill iM'lt are «et forth in Tabli* 'W. coKtw uniler water companieM are 
 irivcn in Table 40. anri umler thn*** |irivate pum|>ini.' plants in Tabic 41 
 The extent to which the cost (»f pumpinc varies with the c.!- •• «>f 
 the pumping plants, the lift an«l the cptantity of wat»'r \> \^ 
 
 intlicated in Tabb»s Xl ami :{.*» 
 
32 
 
 niVISIOX OF WATER RESOlTRf'ES 
 
 00 £; 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 U 
 
 u 
 a 
 
 H 
 W 
 
 z 
 
 I 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 .J 
 U 
 CQ 
 
 H 
 
 < Q 
 
 H U 
 W ^ 
 
 rr * 
 b: 
 u 
 
 .J 
 
 CQ 
 < 
 
 . o 
 
 a: 
 
 OS 
 
 <; 
 
 O 
 OS 
 b 
 
 b: 
 o 
 
 Qi 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 H 
 u 
 
 U 
 < 
 
 ai 
 cu 
 
 u 
 O 
 
 u 
 z 
 
 </) 
 
 o 
 a; 
 
 o 
 
 8000Q000Q00 
 
 »ft n O 1^ lO TJ C t^ iC C") O 
 ^- Cl C^ M* iC '^ 1^ I" 00 Oi o 
 
 to I— o C"» ic r- o CI *o t- o 
 
 c^i CO ic -.^ r>- oo o — C'l cc lO 
 
 s? 
 
 OiOO»CO»00 0»00 
 ,-iO»COCC«>»«*05D50»'*000 
 
 o:; 
 
 I 
 
 •c c^ o r- lO c^ O t-. ic c^ o 
 
 CO O t-- ■* ^ QO ^ — OO »0 Ct 
 
 •— « c^ cj CO -^ ■^T *ra to *-o !•* 00 
 
 ooooooooooo 
 
 iOt^r-iC^*CI~-0 01iCr^O 
 
 C^00»0'-'f^^O-^r40C»O 
 
 r-.— «c^^coco•^^o^c^o^^* 
 
 C^OOiO^-*"*COOCOC^QOiO 
 
 1— ' tc (M 00 CO 3; ic o y3 -^ r-^ 
 
 1— ' *-i C^ CM *.'•.' CO -^ *0 »C '-0 CO 
 
 ooooooooooo 
 
 OiOOu70*COiCO»00 
 
 ^- — CI cs CO CO ^r -^ »f5 »o i^ 
 
 t- — i-O OO CI -^ O CO I— — »0 
 
 OOCOt^— |^O»C0SC000CM 
 
 •».-*^c^c^eococc-«S'-<rO 
 
 OOOO' 
 
 O lO O lO < 
 
 3000000 
 3 iC O iC O iC o 
 
 to (M o t— in CJ o r- ^ c< o 
 
 t- ^H lO 00 d O O CO i'- -- *c 
 
 V^,-.,— ..— .CviCMCOCOCO^r^ 
 
 c»coiocci— ooo—'C^eoiO 
 
 SSSSS8SS8SS 
 
 0*CO^OiOOiOO»00 
 lO I^ O CM »0 I- O CS lO I" o 
 
 ^^ ,-..-.,— .-. CI CI C* CM CO 
 
 > kC O kO Q U) < 
 
 > 1^ o CI S5 »* s 
 
rEKMISSIULK IHKUUTION < liAiv'.KS 
 
 33 
 
 IS9 
 
 
 z 
 1^ 
 
 S 
 
 tt. < 
 
 (Bo 
 
 5 OS a- 
 
 2g 
 
 i8 
 
 fiti 
 
 §1 
 
 2 
 I 
 
 
 S 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 8 
 
 a 
 
 8 
 
 S 
 
 ft 
 
 8 
 
 I 
 
 S 
 
 n 
 
 I 
 
 a 
 
 < 
 
 8 
 
 i> 
 
 2- 
 
 < 
 
 
 5 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 8S8S8S8S8S8 
 
 I 
 
 SS8A5 3 
 
 »I4 — « — . . . t - K) 
 
 a^=ss»^4Aer: 
 
 
 
 
 ^8 
 
 -a 
 
 r:8 
 
 fi « — e - 
 
 * I ! 
 
 8£ ?8 
 
 277" --«i< 
 
 ^8 
 
 'S8S8 
 
 88888888888 
 
 |Bs88Ba2aX8 
 
 ,«_ n 'I <>«•■« Fv 
 
 
 3— S0»»> 
 
34 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 Costs Within Irrigation Districts. — There are three irrigation districts 
 in the foothill bolt, namely: Terra Bella, Vandalia, and Lindsay- 
 Strathmore. The "usnal'' cost to irrijrators, as set out in Table 39, 
 ranges from $25 to $()(i i)er acre ])er annum. The averages for the 
 three districts are $35, $33 and $41, respectively. These averages are 
 computed by adding the district water tolls to the district assessments, 
 the former figure being computed by multiplying the water toll per 
 acre-foot by the average water dut}" in the district. In addition to the 
 averages for the districts, Table 39 gives the cost to thirteen individuals, 
 these including both the district charges and the cost of supplemental 
 pumping. 
 
 Costs Under ^Vater Companies. — Table 40 includes data for eight com- 
 panies as a whole and for five individuals under another company. 
 Omitting the figures for one of the companies, which serves more 
 deciduous and other crops, including pasture, than citrus, the costs 
 per acre range from $27 to $62. 
 
 Costs Under Private Pumping Plants. — Data for only three farms are 
 given in Table 41. the costs for these being $31, $34, and $30 per acre, 
 respectively. 
 
i'KKMISSItil.K IKKKiATION ClIAKUt^ 
 
 35 
 
 CHAPTKi: I\ 
 
 DECIDUOUS FRUITS 
 
 Cottt of Production. 
 
 ^lost of the data usnl in lU'teriniiiin^ ronsoiiubU' irrifjntion charges 
 for dtM.Mduotis fruits relate to peaches, f(ir which there were 84 records 
 made in Tulare County by the Ajrrieultural Extension Service. Addi- 
 tional nH'onls were ohtain<'«l from two ' idantinps and access was 
 had to the t»stinuites of the Farm Man.:, .. at Section of the College 
 of Ajrrioidture and to the bud^'ct of a bank operating a larpe number 
 of farms in the San Joaquin Valley. 
 
 Penohes are one of the very impdn 'idimus oreliard crops of 
 
 the San .Jo;Tquin Valley, as well as of ( ....; ; uia generally. They con- 
 stitute one of the crops always likely to be on a highly competitive basis, 
 so that growers in the long run will be ]>rosperous oidy when their 
 gross income is relatively hiyh and their eosts relatively low. While it 
 is only in the fresh peach market that there is aj)preciable competition 
 with other states, the fact has been brought out in the publications 
 of the California Agricultural Kxperiment Station and other agencies 
 that goo<l cultural pr. as well as good land are necessary if 
 
 growers are to be succe ,.,., 
 
 Of the four upper San Joa<|uin Valley counties chiefly considered 
 in this inquiry, Tulare County ranks second only to Fresno County in 
 acreage devoted to ; - These two counties, in fact, lead the state 
 
 if '' -"duction «.; ;,,,- erop when the principal varieties grown are 
 
 t The acreages in peaches in the upper San .loaquin Valley 
 
 in iMl'n. as reported by the California Cooperative Crop Ileporting 
 S ' o ('ounty. l.').JTJ: Tulare County. 11,7;VJ; Kings 
 
 ( .M,, 
 
 1 , i\ ' 1 M fV" 
 
 1 I lIlO 
 
 The M records of pro > obtained through the Agricidtural 
 
 Extension Service included Phillip. Tu'.ean, Peak. Orange. liibbie, 
 
 I'elnra. Elberta, and Lr)vell 
 
 Phillip. Tt: ' !• 
 
 for 112. let 
 acres. 
 
 Table 10 gives the a^ 
 preharvi^t lalwir and 
 for this re|M)rt. The ir 
 per annum. bas<'d on an 
 depreciation from the ^ 
 
 equiplinnf d- • " 
 
 peneral <\]i'-. 
 > costs. 
 
 The total preharvest < 
 t* -e. ranired from 5^ i 
 
 I t;. were: 
 
 Exeter, fourteen nTords. $l.'n 7fi 
 ifhmore. soven records. * 
 
 The larger number of records were for 
 
 " ' • ' ' '' record was 
 
 from *J t(^ 'JO 
 
 for the M ri'conls. omitting the detail for 
 
 I ..1.1 ,...1.1. 1 _„4l.. 
 
 irately 
 
 . :_ , r acre 
 
 nt ftf ♦2.'*0 an acre and 
 
 l>epr»f iation of 
 
 \" for 
 
 .! 
 
 to th- 
 
 *i-!.' 
 
 S of which i« 
 
 \verageil by i«H:.UiunH, 
 
 Enrlimnrt. one record. $107.42; 
 . nine records. |!l0:i92: 
 
 i iulare. three r rd- ^'M IG, t ■.jii.!. uirv- 
 
 Tille. fourteen records, $7.{.25 ; Ivanhoe. six n\ . 
 
 *0; Farmers- 
 
36 
 
 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 TABLE 10 
 
 AVERAGE OF 84 RECORDS OF PRE-HARVEST COST OF PRODUCTION OF PEACHES 
 IN TULARE COUNTY, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929 
 
 Includes fixed expenses, but not irrigation water or interest. 
 
 Ages 6 years or more. 
 
 ■ , 1 : 
 
 Pre-harvest 
 
 labor 
 
 and 
 
 materials 
 
 Depreciation 
 
 Taxes and 
 insurance 
 
 Allowance 
 
 for 
 
 general 
 
 expenses 
 
 Total 
 
 Total 
 7 area in acres 
 
 Trees 
 
 Improvements 
 
 and 
 
 equipment 
 
 pre-harvest 
 
 cost and 
 
 fixed expenses 
 
 795 
 
 $63 30 
 
 $20 00 
 
 $4 20 
 
 $4 44 
 
 $5 41 
 
 $97 35 
 
 Some of the records for which the location is not certain are not 
 included in this classification. • 
 
 Table 11 presents the data obtained for the two large holdings of 
 deciduous orchards previously mentioned. These records are for 
 "trees"; that is, for miscellaneous varieties. As in the case of the 
 records in Table 10 nothing is included for irrigation water or for 
 interest. Depreciation on improvements and equipment is taken care 
 of in the labor account. Depreciation of trees at $20 an acre is added 
 to the record supplied by the growers. 
 
 TABLE 11 
 
 COST OF PRODUCTION PER ACRE FOR DECIDUOUS FRUITS ON TWO LARGE S.\N JOA- 
 QUIN VALLEY TRACTS, 1929, NOT INCLUDING IRRIGATION WATER OR INTEREST 
 
 No. 
 
 Area in 
 acres 
 
 Pre-harvest labor and 
 material, including de- 
 precation on improve- 
 ments and equipment 
 
 Depreciation 
 of trees 
 
 Total 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 574 
 184 
 
 $55 57 
 61 90 
 
 $20 00 
 20 00 
 
 $75 57 
 81 90 
 
 Six varieties of deciduous fruits are included in the budget data 
 furnished by the bank previously referred to. Table 12 gives the 
 itemized estimates for each crop, these being intended to amply cover 
 
 TABLE 12 
 
 BUDGET ESTIMATES OF A SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY BANK COVERING 
 COST OF PRODUCING CERTAIN DECIDUOUS FRUITS' 
 
 Variety 
 
 Nectarines 
 Apricot*.. 
 Almonds.. 
 
 Plums 
 
 Fif« 
 
 Plowing 
 and 
 
 cultivat- 
 ing 
 
 Propping 
 
 Pruning, 
 
 brush 
 disposal 
 
 Thinning 
 
 Spraying 
 
 Irrigation 
 labor 
 
 Deprecia- 
 tion 
 on 
 trees 
 
 Total 
 without 
 deprecia- 
 tion, 
 general 
 expenses 
 and taxes 
 
 $11 00 
 11 00 
 11 00 
 11 00 
 11 00 
 
 $5 00 
 
 2 00 
 
 $12 00 
 12 00 
 
 6 00 
 10 00 
 
 8 00 
 
 $6 00 
 
 $10 00 
 
 8 00 
 
 10 00 
 
 10 00 
 
 4 00 
 
 $5 00 
 
 5 00 
 
 6 00 
 6 00 
 5 00 
 
 $20 00 
 20 00 
 20 00 
 20 00 
 20 00 
 
 $49 00 
 38 00 
 31 00 
 26 00 
 28 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total with 
 allowance 
 
 for 
 depreoift- 
 
 tion, 
 
 general 
 
 expense* 
 
 and taxM 
 
 $82 00 
 71 00 
 04 00 
 5» 00 
 61 00 
 
 ■ IirifatioD water aod IntwMt we not included. 
 
PRRMISSIIILE IRRI<:ATI0N ( IIAitOlS 87 
 
 ictual oporntions, witljout oithor dt-proointion or intorost. Tho same 
 Item for depreciation of trees used in the preceding: table has been 
 added. 
 
 The Farm .MaiiapMueiit Section of the Collejre of Ajjriculture has 
 recently revis«»»l its estimate of the cost of produeinj? peaches, this 
 assuming jjood farm or^jani/ation and efTieirnt manapenient. Their 
 fiirures in detail are presi-nted in Table l.T Tlu'Sf tiiriires are for pre- 
 harvest operations aii<l material. «ii<l are assmnt-d to be the same 
 repardlciis of yield or variety. 
 
 TABLK IJ 
 
 CX>ST PER ACRE OF PRODUCING PEAOIES. AS ESTIMATED BY THE FARM MANAGE- 
 MENT SECTION. COLLEGE OF A< .RUn.TURI", INri,UDING INTEREST 
 AND DEPRECIATION ON IMPLEMliNTS AND WORK STOCK 
 
 OvkmueniMm 12 40 
 
 CoT*f craft: 
 
 Dukiac. two ««vi t\ '^2 
 
 Seed -• It) 
 
 8M«fii« 4S 4 <0 
 
 14 77 
 
 ISO 
 
 25 i3 
 
 32 40 
 
 3 «8 
 
 Dio^ bonn and loforth..... ........ ............................. 3 60 
 
 Dwaag la eoTcr crop I 13 
 
 CNihirBtioa 3 68 
 
 IrngBtM" i*t)or, iochidiiic buid prvpcrmtion 4 3S 
 
 Tool 198 18 
 
 In Table \'.\ there is inelnded an allowance for interest' and deprecia- 
 tion on implements and work stock, but no allowance for depreciation 
 on tre«»s. I'pon request, the Farm Manapement Section has revised this 
 table to eliminate interest. an<l the fitrun' has bfen added for deprecia- 
 tion on tn'cs. as is f^iven in Tables 1". 11. iin<i 1-. Th''<.> r.vi>,lMr.< ;ir.» 
 piven in Table 14. 
 
 TABIE 14 
 
 COST PER ACRE OF PROIH;cIN<; PEAOIES. as estimated by the farm MANAtJE- 
 
 MENT SECTION. COLLEGE OF At.RIC irLfURE. NOT INCJ.UDINCi INTTRliST 
 
 ON IMTI ? "• ' rs AND WORK STCKK. BUT INdUDIMi THE SA.ME 
 
 ALL*' FOR DIPRICIATION ON PEA( H TRIIS AS IS 
 
 USED ELSEWHERE IN TllIS REPORT 
 
 rpkrrp oa ■I'tdMi-^.— *-' ■•' 
 
 DUtW- *' *^ 
 
 iWaiac. 
 
 Dtnicbann aod *o (ortb 
 
 r«ltt*attM 
 
 InteliM Wmt. tacl^ 
 
 
 19 
 
 11 
 
 ( 1 
 
 
 4« 
 
 ^^ 
 
 OM 
 
 3; 
 
 ♦<1 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 HI 
 
 
 f^ 
 
 
 i: 
 
 
 06 
 
 MOO 
 
 TolkJ IttS U 
 
 It will be noted that the totaU pn'sented in Tables 11 and 12 ar^ 
 substantially less than the average of the Aprienltural I on 
 
 Senice. t'' ' - - - ' ■ - • of p- on 
 
 than the a\ ; _ > wever. sts 
 
 presented in Table 11 are for highly orjranize*! and relatively large 
 
38 
 
 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 enterprises, and the efficiency of operation reflected in the costs can not 
 be duplicated on the usual individual holdings. The bank budget 
 figures presented in Table 12 likewise must be given less weight for the 
 purposes of this inquiry than those of the Extension Service, because 
 the holdings for which they have been made are in process of financial 
 readjustment, during which time some items are usually neglected, 
 and because the centralized administration of the propertj' should 
 result in savings which individual farmers can not accomplish. The 
 figures given in Table 13 and revised in Table 14 are substantially 
 higher than those shoAvn by the 84 Agricultural Extension Service 
 records, but it should be remembered that the Farm Management Sec- 
 tion figures are intended to represent certain definite conditions which 
 can not be expected to be reflected in averages of a large number of 
 individual records. 
 
 After considering the general conditions and hazards in the deciduous 
 fruit industry and the consequent need for conservatism, it is believed 
 the averages shown in Tables 11 and 12 should not be used as a basis 
 for conclusions, but that the average shown by the 84 Agricultural 
 Extension Service records should even be increased. The basis for this 
 increase is the higher costs presented by the Farm Management Section 
 and the need for adding to the amount allowed for spraying. The 
 average amount spent for spraying in the Tulare area is between $5 
 and $6 an acre. It is the recommendation of specialists that this figure 
 should not be less than $14. For purposes of this report the average of 
 the Tulare County records has been raised to the round figure of $105 
 an acre for total pre-harvest costs and fixed charges. 
 
 Starting in, then, with a total pre-harvest cost, together with fixed 
 charges, amounting to $105 an acre. Table 15 has been prepared to show 
 the cost with harvesting included. The table covers a range of yield 
 of from five to twelve tons per acre. Harvesting costs are added at 
 rates varying from $5.50 a ton for yields of five tons to $4.50 a ton for 
 yields of twelve tons. 
 
 TABLE 15 
 
 AVERAGE COST PER ACRE OF PRODUCING AND HARVESTING PEACHES IN 
 
 TULARE COUNTY 
 
 Cost of production taken at $105 an acre; hnryrstinK figured at from $5.50 a ton for yields of five tons 
 to $4.50 a ton for yields of twelve tons per acre. 
 
 Yield in tons 
 per acre 
 
 Average cost 
 per acre 
 
 Yield in tons 
 per acre 
 
 Average cost 
 per acre 
 
 S 
 
 $132 50 
 13S 14 
 141 .50 
 145 57 
 
 9 
 
 $149 57 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 152 86 
 
 7 
 
 11 
 
 156 07 
 
 8 
 
 12 , 
 
 159 00 
 
 
 
 
 Income from Peaches and Amount Available for Irrigation Water Charges. 
 
 Table IG shows llie income per acre with a yield of five to twelve tons 
 per acre and a selling i)rice of $20 to $50 a ton f . o. b. at the local 
 delivery point. 
 
PBR1CI88IBI.E IRRKSATIOS CHARUFS 
 
 39 
 
 TAiU.i: 16 
 
 GROSS INCOME PfcR Al Rl TO GROWI RS FROM l»l At MIS WITH YII I OS OF FIVE 
 TO TWELVE TONS AN ACRE AND A PRICE RANGE OF »M TO tM A TON 
 
 
 I-'O 
 
 m 
 
 tM 
 
 135 
 
 1 
 140 
 
 145 
 
 tM 
 
 S . 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 fir.-. 
 ■.«.j 
 ISO 
 
 ao 
 no 
 
 II:' 
 i . -> 
 
 ::s 
 
 2iO 
 27S 
 100 
 
 tJSO 
 l» 
 210 
 
 ;4o 
 ro 
 
 300 
 330 
 SIO 
 
 IITS 
 J 10 
 .'45 
 S« 
 31S 
 3iO 
 
 s«s 
 
 490 
 
 noo 
 
 -■40 
 .•W 
 iX 
 360 
 400 
 440 
 410 
 
 mt 
 
 370 
 316 
 
 a« 
 
 406 
 4M 
 406 
 MO 
 
 •22 
 
 MO 
 MO 
 
 400 
 450 
 
 10. 
 
 SOO 
 
 II.. 
 
 UO 
 
 11. , 
 
 000 
 
 
 
 Plate II has boon prt'pan'tl to facilitate determination of the yields 
 at a jriven price or the price at a driven yield i' -y to return the 
 
 cost of pro(hn'tinn and harvrstintr and also inter, i ..; ti ptT cent on the 
 averaj;e investment.* The curve Ali in tliis plate indicates the cost 
 of production and harvesting, and the curve CD the cost of prodtiction 
 and harvcstin^r, tOf;eth»'r with interest at 6 per cent. Curves EF, (til, 
 KL, and .V.V represent the additional amounts, by $5 increments, that 
 mitrht. under difTerent assumptions, be recjuired to cover the cost of 
 irri^'ation water. 
 
 PLATE 11 
 
 i 
 
 ***■ ■ ' '*** ' ' '***' 
 
 RELATION BF.TWF.EN COST OF PRODUCING AND HARVKSTINC 
 PEACHES AND FARM INCOME. 
 
 tn MCr« Includes land at |:qo . Ur«fl. }1«'>. farm 
 
 •qu 
 
40 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 It now becomes necessary to determine the amount of the farm 
 income, above cost of production and harvesting, out of which costs 
 for irrifjation water are to be taken. To do this it is necessary to 
 assume a yield and a price for peaches which can be taken as a safe 
 estimate for the future. 
 
 The averajre yield of peaches durinfr the past four years for the 
 S4 records obtained throuj^h the Ajjricultural Extension Service for 
 Tularo County was 7.72 tons an acre. Aecordino; to Afrricultural 
 Extension Service Circular 1, the average * price received by the 
 growers for clingstones during the period 1901-1925 was $39 a ton, 
 and for freestones during the same period, $30 a ton. The same pub- 
 lication gives the average for the period 1921-1925 as the same. In the 
 case of clingstones the range was from $12 to $100, with the price below 
 the average in 15 years out of the 25. In the case of freestones, the 
 range Avas from $10 to $64, with the price again below the average in 
 1 5 out of 25 years. 
 
 On the assumption that growers may, on the average, obtain a yield 
 of 7 tons an acre and that on the average they will receive a price of 
 $30 a ton. Plate II indicates that the return an acre to the growers 
 would be $210. This is $68.50 an acre in excess of the cost of pro- 
 ducing seven tons an acre. If this yield and this price were to be 
 obtained as an average over a period of years, growers could pay as high 
 as $20 an acre for irrigation water and st.ill show a profit of $24.80 an 
 acre over all costs, including depreciation, interest, and water. With a 
 price of $25 a ton.f which seems a maximum figure to assume, the 
 margin above cost of production and harvesting, together with interest 
 on the average investment, would be reduced to $9.80 an acre. The 
 situation is presented graphically in Plate II. 
 
 In addition to the cost data relating to peaches obtained from the 
 Farm IManagement Section of the College of Agriculture, and already 
 given in Tables 13 and 14, similar information has been obtained from 
 that section relating to apricots. Their total pre-harvest cost per acre, 
 including interest and depreciation on equipment and work stock, an 
 irrigation water charge of $5.62, county taxes, and depreciation on 
 trees, is $166.25 for a six-ton yield of canning fruit, and $149.35 for a 
 four-Ion yield. 
 
 Because interest on the entire investment, as well as the cost of irri- 
 gatif)n water, is included in the cost data reported in Agricultural 
 Extension Circular 24, the data available from that source for decidu- 
 ous fruits are not entirely comparable Avith figures supplied by the 
 Farm Management Section, and they are, of course, not comparable 
 with tlie costs for ]-)eaehes as presented in tlie discussion of that crop. 
 However, the figures show relative costs and tliey ihcrefore are included 
 in Table 17. P>y way of reconciling the higher costs for peaches in 
 Sutter and Stanislaus counties it might be stated that the yields in 
 the l.'itter eonnlies for the records given are ap|)r(>ci;il)ly higlier than 
 tlie average of 7.72 tons for th(> Tulare Countv records. 
 
 • TTnwplKhtPfl .TVoraKo. 
 
 t ThI.s flKure lian bfcn .Trbltraril.v chosen a.s the hiKhest it seems reasonable to 
 assume, In vk-w of the iinccrtalntles of the peach industry. There is a general feeling 
 that thi' historical average ff>r this crop, rlnc jiartly to wide (luctuations, Is not a safe 
 guide for the future. If It could be ns.stmied that the price will be fixed by the cost 
 of produrfjon where peaches can be grown most cheaply, even $25 would probably be 
 too high. 
 
rKKMl.N>UU.K IKKK.ATIO.N ( UAlC'il-S 
 
 41 
 
 TAItt-t \7 
 
 DATA RF(.ARniS(. ( c%sr C1| PROIH C I U>N IM R \t Rl Mm AI'RK Ors. PRirSI S AND 
 PFM MIS. AS RLTDRTKD IN Al.RICLl-TURAL LXTl NSIDN SI RVICI ( IWm VH U 
 
 T\g<UT» iarKidr chaff* fcv im|Bboa vairr aixl inlmvt on fana lnT«tlll•^t 
 I Iw I9M oaly m* civm 
 
 rral 
 
 CMDtir 
 
 Aprieato 
 
 Aphrata 
 \pnto4j 
 
 r«iH«. 
 
 4 
 
 9 
 M 
 
 31 
 IS 
 17 
 74 
 3S 
 3« 
 S 
 
 as 
 
 
 ^>rratvlaUl 
 
 
 eoftol 
 
 r 
 
 pradnrtioa 
 
 
 (•-f »<Tr 
 
 23 
 
 li'rf n 
 
 IT 
 
 isn 81 
 
 7» 
 
 i:o 21 
 
 sn 
 
 i:s qt 
 
 Vi] 
 
 lo 3 
 
 3M 
 
 144 ol 
 
 I'll 
 
 11H '^J 
 
 I'y.S 
 
 l>-.s «» 
 
 .'111 
 
 :« 50 
 
 _'»«7 
 
 .•:« 41 
 
 ».''. 
 
 I*"'. 07 
 
 - " 
 
 163 34 
 
 The (lata in the jihnvc table, exeept l"<>r peaehos in Stanislaus and 
 Sutter counties,* show that pro»luetion costs for the three deciduous 
 fruits included are of the same general order. Table 18, which gives the 
 net profits from the same fruits over a period of years, shows a much 
 ■• ■ ' - ' riation and makes a v;-'" •* -tory comparison of the various 
 - fruits impovsililc. Hi. Table \^ does j;ive some evidence 
 
 in support of an assumption, (juite penerally aceepted. that the data pre- 
 »• rit. d in the <li.scussion of peaches can fairly be taken to be applicable 
 to otiicr deciduous fruits. 
 
 TAntL !•» 
 
 AVl R\(,F NtT PROMT OR LOSS PI R A(Jll FROM PROIM.t:TIl>N OF t.l.RTAIN 1)1 C ll>- 
 
 KH s FRUITS AS REPORT! O IN At.RICirLTLHAL F.XTFNSION SFRVICF C IRCUI.AR 
 
 24, OOLLECI RULT-TIRF. LrNIVFRSITV (»F !\ 
 
 fnrfl 
 
 
 -«i«r 
 
 Noralwr 
 
 ACT»» 
 
 iaftodjr 
 
 
 \ crm u 
 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 Uj 
 
 11 *: 
 
 Kftict** 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 !'« .1* 
 
 ApncDto 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 •t. 
 
 f-< M 
 
 Aftv »-• 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 7J 
 
 ' ; :i 
 
 A rr»-> t ? 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 ir 
 
 "■ )» 
 
 Apnc%AM 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 «0 
 
 (4! 
 
 Aprtma. 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 7« 
 
 ' 
 
 IWI.-. 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 M 
 
 > 
 
 r»^.^^-. 
 
 
 
 31 
 
 I'M 
 
 •* 
 
 fmetr^ 
 
 
 
 17 
 
 .i: 
 
 «r 
 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 .{'•> 
 
 ■• i 
 
 fV^f'N^ 
 
 
 
 !• 
 
 ,-«: 
 
 «; 11 
 
 FSt^ft 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 '•. 
 
 4: '.4 
 
 f^f^B 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 1!; 
 
 •-« i: 
 
 TSnkir 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 Hi 
 
 ■< VI 
 
 T^mVv 
 
 
 
 .•4 
 
 rjo 
 
 «•) 
 
 P^VMn 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 M» 
 
 •' M 
 
 IVrv. 
 
 
 
 It 
 
 VV4 
 
 li <W 
 
 IVw« 
 
 
 
 IT 
 
 :!i 
 
 4* m 
 
 1 • 
 
 They were maiie up on 
 
 ■-- ' ' VtanlaUua Covr'r 
 I In TuUr* Co'i 
 
42 
 
 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 Costs of Irrigation Water in the Upper San Joaquin Deciduous Fruit Areas. 
 
 Deciduous fruits are not localized as are citrus fruits, but are scat- 
 tered throughout the developed portions of the areas south of Kings 
 River, except in the Tulare Lake bottom grain sections. However, they 
 are most largely found under the main southside Kings River irrigation 
 .systems — Alta Irrigation District, Peoples Ditch Company, and Lucerne 
 and Lemoore Irrigation Districts — and in the vicinity of Tulare Irri- 
 gation District, in the Delano-]\IcParland section, and in the Kern River 
 areas southeast of Bakersfield. Present irrigation costs in these sections 
 are given in Tables 42, 44, 48, 53, 55, and 56. 
 
 Costs per acre under the Kern River ditches (Table 42) are low, 
 ranging from 63 to 99 cents, to cite figures for East Side and Kern 
 River canals only, not including additional costs of operating private 
 pumping plants. Under the Kings County water companies (Table 
 48) the approximate average costs range from 93 cents to $2.45. Under 
 the Kaweah River Delta canals cited (Table 53) the range is $1.01 to 
 $3.28, with some supplemental private pumping not included. For 
 areas supplied exclusively by private pumping plants (Tables 44 and 
 55) the range in the six cases cited, which are those that include decidu- 
 ous fruits as among the crops irrigated, is $10.40 to $17.60 per acre. 
 
PBRMISSIBLE IRKiUATION (-IlAK<.r.-> 43 
 
 fHAPTKH V 
 GRAPES 
 
 Cottt of Production. 
 
 Tlu* ^rapo iiulustry is siu'h a larm> ami vital part of the agriculture 
 t»f San .loatiuin Valley that its status }»reatly affects economic coiuli- 
 ♦•■■•'N in that area, the ll^'JH crop survey by the State Engineer's 
 showed Fresno County with 2<MV11() acres of vines; Tulare. 75.477 ; 
 Kern. 2:i.H01. and Kinjrs. 1<).12(J'J. These acreages in the fotir upper 
 counties of the valley iiiakf up (>!> per cent of the irrape acrea>;e of the 
 entire San Joaquin stvtion. aiul about :U per cent of the vineyard 
 area of the I'nitctl States.* 
 
 From a use standpoint, prapes can bo classed into thn'e major proups. 
 viz: table, juice antl raisin. Since some varieties can be sohl under 
 more than one class, as. f(»r instance, Muscats, which may be sold 
 MiHJt'r all three, the price level for such varieties tends to equalize for 
 the various clas.ses. At present the Emperor, n table variety, seems to 
 be receivinp a hijrher price than other prapes. reirardlcss of clas.s. but 
 since it comprises only about .') p««r cent of the acreape it «loes not 
 warrant separate consideration. Parts of Kern County have a pood 
 market in the I^os Anpeles area for early varieties of table prapes. and, 
 as in the case of other spjM'ial advantapes. the vineyarrls which can reach 
 that early market coidd pay a hiphcr price for irripation water. How- 
 ever, the Volume of the shipiiients involved is not sufficient to justify a 
 special classitication in this report 
 
 Co8t-of-prwluction records to the nund)er of .'{60 were available from 
 the enterpri ^* iency studi«'s of the Apricidttiral Extension Service. 
 They inclu.;. . ->\ in Fresno County. SO in Tulare County, and 20 in 
 Kern County. Of these 101 were taken for detailed study. In addi- 
 tion. estimat«>i were obtaine<l frf)m a nuudx'r of shipfwrs and farm 
 ni • s and cost records were furnished directly by .several farmers 
 w;.-. ,.- - j» cost •' '"'- 
 
 Table 19 su the data obtained from the 101 enterprise 
 
 efficiency studies of the Apricidtural FIxtension Service chosen for 
 study, vineyards under five yrars old not Ix'inp include<l. It will be 
 noted th"' *' ■ avrra'j-- • •— ' "-vest cost, not includ'"" !••.-;,, .tu.ri water 
 or an all •• for u f includinp fixe<l d - IS.40 an 
 
 acre. Depreciation on vines is bas4-d on an asmimed investment at five 
 years of ape of .*225 an acre, this to b** written ofT over a pericxl of 
 
 .10 vfars. Since tlnr< ' *»«M'n bn' i'"' • • ' inp of vineyards durinp 
 
 the last five years, ii; tlir r- r vines in full bearing. 
 
 Tables 20 to 24 .summarize the estimates or data relatinp to cost of 
 prmluction of prapes obtained from sourc«>s other than the Apricidtural 
 
 Et - .. It ^vill be note<l that the cos* ' • —• not 
 
 d. :.le with ench other or with the a n in 
 
 Table 19 because no depret-iation is directly figurwl and I eertain 
 
 other items, such as interest and allowances for supervisjuii and other 
 
 • Sh-.ir, S W . » 
 
 Agr. Ktr. *Jia. » • , . ''? 
 
 Aujus 
 
44 
 
 DFVTSION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 TABLE 19 
 
 SUMMARY OF DATA RELATING TO THE PRE-HARVEST COST PER ACRE OF PRODUC- 
 ING GRAPES, INCLUDING FIXED CHARGES. BUT WITH NO 
 ALLOWANCE FOR IRRIGATION WATER OR INTEREST 
 
 Data obtained from 101 enterprise eflSciency studies made by the agricultural extension service in Fresno, Tulare and 
 
 Kern counties, 1926 to 1929. 
 
 Total acreage, 
 approximately 
 
 Pre- 
 
 harvest 
 
 cost for 
 
 labor and 
 
 materials 
 
 Annual depreciation 
 
 Tfixes 
 
 and 
 
 insurance 
 
 Incidental 
 expenses 
 
 General 
 expense 
 
 
 Vines 
 
 Improve- 
 ments 
 
 Equip- 
 ment 
 
 Total 
 
 800 
 
 S29 26 
 
 J7 50 SO 92 
 
 $1 65 
 
 $4 95 
 
 $0 12 
 
 $3 00 
 
 $48 40 
 
 
 
 
 
 overhead, are not treated on a uniform basis. In one case especially 
 (Table 24) the conditions nnder which the crop were grown were 
 unrepresentative. In spite of the difference involved, the material is 
 included because it shows sometliing of the variation in the data which 
 must be expected in such a study as that reported herein. The sum- 
 mary of the data in Tables 20 to 24, given in Table 25, facilitates 
 comparison. 
 
 TABLE 20 
 
 COST PER ACRE OF PRODUCING 20 ACRES OF EMPEROR GRAPES, AS ESTIMATED 
 BY A SUCCESSFUL GROWER AND SHIPPER NEAR PORTERVILLE 
 
 Pruning - $8 00 
 
 Brush disposal ji 1 50 
 
 Tying 1 75 
 
 Twine - 50 
 
 Sulphur .---.---- 3 00 
 
 Labor in sulphuring (seven applications) 2 50 
 
 Plowing 3 00 
 
 Cultivating, including irrigation furrowing 5 00 
 
 Irrigation labor 3 00 
 
 Suckering (three times) and thinning 3 50 
 
 Miscellaneous - 5 00 
 
 Total pre-harvest cost, not including fixed charges, interest or irrigation 
 
 water --- J41 75 
 
 TABLE 21 
 
 LABOR AND MATERIAL COSTS PER ACRE ON LARGE ACREAGE OF VINEYARD AT 
 DELANO, 1929, NOT INCLUDING IRRIGATION WATER AND WITH NO 
 ALLOWANCE FOR INTEREST OR FIXED CHARGES 
 
 Varieties included Thom[>son, White Malagas, Emperor, Muscat and others. 
 
 Pruning 16 14 
 
 Tying 2 76 
 
 Thinning and suckering.... . . 5 91 
 
 Irrigation lal)or 4 19 
 
 Plowing furrows 59 
 
 Sulphur 34 
 
 Horing . 36 
 
 Tractor work .. 1 18 
 
 Pulling leaves 2 06 
 
 Hrush disposal 1 87 
 
 Miscellaneous 10 
 
 ToUL... $26 50 
 
 in addition to the above, 120 tons were made into raisins at a cotit per ton of $13.70 for picking, turning and hauling. 
 
PMmftR"" ' IKKKiAllU.N I'llAlllil^ 
 
 45 
 
 Ct>STS PI R AC-Ri: 1>I- PKcMH?CINt 
 lOAQl'IN VAU.l.V IN 112**. 
 
 irru;aiion watkr. 
 
 TABLE 22 
 
 i t.HVPIS IN T\\t> IWA( TS IN Till t PPI R SAN 
 W I II U)f 1 ALLDWANCi-. lOR IN I l.RLS 1. 
 lyLUPMliNT. OR IIXH> C.MARtJfc^i 
 
 MaOTllaaaout nkheUw. 
 
 
 Tr«rt Na I. 
 U24i 
 
 Plotnii^ and euhiraliag.. 
 
 Trri'tTiunt 
 
 ''.^«.. ......... 
 
 '-«d eootroL _. 
 
 T ■. .. 
 
 16 
 
 u 
 II 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 ft 
 I 
 
 AS 
 10 SI 
 
 1 63 
 4 40 
 I 6S 
 
 LSSOMfw 
 
 tC 03 
 
 I 17 
 
 12 50 
 
 3 70 
 
 57 
 
 004 
 
 ft 3« 
 
 7« 
 
 03 
 
 8 35 
 
 34 
 
 11 10 
 
 1 »7 
 
 166 6S 
 
 tU04 
 
 TABLE U 
 
 BUDC.ET FSTIMATI S OF c:OST PIR A( Rl OF PRl>DL'CINCi AND MAHVFSriNC; (iRAPES 
 
 AS LSfcO IN 1<»J0 BV A LARC^I: FARM OPI RATOR IN SAN JO\(,)CIN VAUI Y 
 
 WITHOUT ALLOWANCE FOR 1NTFJ*EST. DEPRECIATION 
 
 ON VINES OR IRHK.ATION WATER 
 
 ^tO^tEJ 
 
 Toul 
 
 '.DC kitd bnab (UfpoMl. 
 : biihx« 
 
 14 00 
 
 ft 00 
 
 10 Sft 
 
 2ft 
 
 ft 14 
 
 ft 31 
 
 ni B8 
 
 TABLE 24 
 
 COST PER ACRE OF PRODLt IN<i Tlk)MPSON SEEDI.ESS AND MAI.ACA HAlSfNS. I<»22 
 JO 19J9. AS EURNISIIi D BY A PRl>MINENrr (.ROWl R NEAR tXETEH 
 
 ImIwIm m wHwalid •ilo««a** (or liw to* U »T«>Uaa wUm d 17 pw acr* (of IW 
 •0* icr Ikt Mili<w. ImI 4fam m« HMlodf mta««i4. 
 
 u>i 110 pw 
 
 \'»iMr 
 
 i-4 « f, 
 
 trwur 
 
 >Vrt...»»r 
 
 } t:'.>^ 
 
 \U'. 
 
 Mati^. 
 
 121 M lit 0« H i: 
 21 M \i (H 7 ftl 
 
 IT M 
 
 7 ftO 
 
 Total. 
 
 ..:^Z Toll '^^ 
 
 wnttUam 
 
 ft* . |:.« .- 11)7 3« 
 
 v~»r TUigrowi 
 
46 
 
 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 TABLE 25 
 
 SUMMARY OF PRE-HARVEST COSTS PER ACRE OF PRODUCING GRAPES, WITH 
 
 DEPRECIATION ON VINES AND OTHER FIXED CHARGES ADDED AT THE 
 
 RATE OF $15.14 PER ACRE- WHERE NOT ALREADY INCLUDED 
 
 Table number 
 
 Amount 
 
 Table number 
 
 Amount 
 
 20 . -— 
 
 S56 89 
 40 64 
 70 79 
 83 18 
 
 23 
 
 $47 09 
 
 21 
 
 24, Thompsons 
 
 117 28 
 
 22, tract 1 
 
 24, Malagas 
 
 128 08 
 
 22, tract 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 • The average shown by 101 agricultural extension service records as given in Table 19. 
 
 The wide range in pre-harvest costs shown in Teble 25 might seem 
 to indicate that it is impossible to arrive at a figure representative of 
 the industry. However, as already pointed out. the figures given in 
 Table 25 and in the tables from which they are taken are not strictly 
 comparable. It is the conclusion that the report can most safely pro- 
 ceed on the basis of the 101 Agricultural Extension Service records, 
 the average of which has been shown to be $48.40 an acre for pre- 
 harvest costs, including fixed charges, but without allowance for interest 
 or irrigation water.* The range for these 101 records was from 
 $30.99 to $82.79 an acre. 
 
 It is recognized that there is a certain weather risk in harvesting 
 grapes for which allowance needs to be made, but no data are available 
 for evaluating it. In view of this ri.sk a pre-harvest cost of $50 an 
 acre has been arbitrarily assumed. 
 
 Income from Grapes and Amount Available for Irrigation Water Charges. 
 
 It previously has been stated that grapes are harvested as table 
 grapes, raisins, and juice grapes, some varieties being sold under all 
 three of these classes. It does not seem necessary in the present study 
 to attempt to use more than one class in arriving at permissible irriga- 
 tion Avater charges. The class chosen is raisins, since the largest part 
 of the upper San Joaquin grape crop is disposed of ,in this form. 
 
 Basing the study of permissible irrigation water charges for grapes 
 on raisins might be considered by some to be too conservative, since 
 table and juice grapes have generally been bringing higher returns. 
 However, the stabilization plans recently adopted for the entire grape 
 industry in California, and the tendency towards equalization in prices 
 for the varieties sold under all three classes, seem to warrant basing 
 the analysis on raisin grai)es only. Plate 111. taken from California 
 Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 429, t page 92, shows the 
 trend of purchasing power of the various classes over a ten-year period. 
 
 After eonsidering the results ol" his studies extending over several 
 years, it is the judgment of the Farm Advisor of Tulare County that a 
 safe figure to use for harvesting a two-ton crop of raisins would be 
 $15 a ton and for a one-ton crop, $17 a ton. and he has suggested that 
 an average figure of $10 a ton be adopted. On the basis of this figure 
 and the assumed pre-harvest cost of $50 an acre jjreviously referred to, 
 
 • The Acrrlrullur.ll Kxtonsion Sprvlcp .Tverape was $50.90, which included a 
 deprecl.Ttlon allowance on vinos of $10 an aero per annum, whereas the depreciation 
 allowance In this report Is $7.50 an acre per annum. 
 
 t Shear. R.W . and OouM. H.F., Economic Status of the Grape Industry, California 
 Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 429, p. 92. 
 
I-KKMIS8IIII.K IKKIfATUtN ( llAKti^> 
 
 PLATE III 
 
 o 
 
 Ui 
 
 
 —r 
 
 \- 
 
 4 
 
 o o 
 o 
 
 uc- j»d ?jPi!or 
 
 I 
 
 (A 
 
 u 
 
 M 
 M 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 z 
 < 
 
 t/i 
 
 u 
 
 H 
 U 
 
 X 
 
 < 
 > 
 
 GQ 
 
 CO 
 
 U 
 
 < 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 M 
 
 M 
 
 OK 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 u 
 
 Ok 
 
 O 
 
 « 
 td 
 
 O 
 
 a. 
 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 at 
 
48 
 
 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 Table 26 ha.s been j^repared to show the average cost per acre of pro- 
 duciiif; and harvesting raisins in the upper San Joaqu,in Valley, and 
 Table 27 has been pre])ared to show the income per acre with yields of 
 .75 to 2.25 tons per acre and a price range of from $40 to $80 a ton. 
 
 TABLE 26 
 
 AVERAGE COST PER ACRE OF PRODUCING AND HARVESTING RAISINS 
 IN THE UPPER SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 
 
 Pre-harvest cost taken at $50 an acre: Han'esting figured at $16 a ton and no allowance included for interest or 
 
 for irrigation water. 
 
 Yield, in tons 
 per acre 
 
 Average cost 
 per acre 
 
 Yield, in tons 
 per acre 
 
 Average cost 
 per acre 
 
 0.75 
 1.00 
 1.25 
 1.50 
 
 $62 00 
 C6 00 
 70 GO 
 74 00 
 
 1.75 
 2.00 
 2.25 
 
 $78 00 
 82 00 
 86 00 
 
 
 
 
 TABLE 27 
 
 INCOME PER ACRE TO GROWERS FROM RAISINS WITH YIELDS OF 0.75 TO 2.25 TONS 
 PER ACRE AND A PRICE RANGE OF $40 TO $80 PER TON 
 
 
 
 
 Price per ton 
 
 
 
 Yield per acre, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tons 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 $40 
 
 $50 
 
 $60 
 
 $70 
 
 $80 
 
 0.75 
 
 $30 00 
 
 $37 50 
 
 $45 00 
 
 $52 50 
 
 $60 00 
 
 1.00 
 
 40 00 
 
 50 00 
 
 60 00 
 
 70 00 
 
 80 00 
 
 1.25 
 
 50 00 
 
 62 50 
 
 75 00 
 
 87 50 
 
 100 00 
 
 1 50 
 
 60 00 
 
 75 00 
 
 90 00 
 
 105 00 
 
 120 00 
 
 1.75 
 
 70 00 
 
 87 50 
 
 105 00 
 
 122 50 
 
 140 00 
 
 2.00 
 
 80 00 
 
 100 00 
 
 120 00 
 
 140 00 
 
 160 00 
 
 2.25 
 
 90 00 
 
 112 50 
 
 135 00 
 
 157 50 
 
 180 00 
 
 Yields. — Figures regarding average yields of raisins per acre in the 
 upper San Joaquin Valley are not available for long periods or large 
 acreages. Agricultural Extension Service Circular 24 gives the 
 following data : 
 
 
 1926 
 
 1927 
 
 1928 
 
 Fresno County, Thompson Seedless — 
 NumU'r of records 
 
 24 
 482.3 
 1.71 
 
 9 
 356.2 
 1.47 
 
 20 
 305.8 
 1.76 
 
 8 
 218 5 
 1.87 
 
 7 
 207.6 
 1.75 
 
 27 
 444 
 1 11 
 
 9 
 
 Acriit in study 
 
 203.0 
 
 AvcraKo yield per acre (dried tons) 
 
 2 05 
 
 FrcRno (k)unty. Muscats — 
 lg Numl)c*r of records 
 
 
 > Acrr-H in study 
 
 
 *" Averugc yield per acre (dried tons) . 
 
 
 iMudprn Coiiiity, TliompiioD Seedless — 
 N u in licr of records 
 
 17 
 
 Acres in study 
 
 
 324.4 
 
 Avcraec yield per acre (dried tons). . 
 
 
 1.71 
 
 Tulare ( ounty, mwina— 
 
 J Number of recorda.. 
 
 
 25 
 
 Acres in study .. 
 
 
 357 
 
 Average yield per acre (dried tons) 
 
 
 2 00 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 I 
 
PBRMIS.SIHLF. IRUI«iATION' ('HAROICS 49 
 
 Yii'Ms nlso are nvnilabK* from 19 ontcrpris*' ofllfitMu-y studii's of 
 tlu> Au'rirultural Kxtciisioii S«'rvii«»' in Tulan* rounty for 1929. Tin* 
 .\ • LTO for this year was l.Sl tons. Nine records for Kre.sno for 
 !;'_'- i^'avo an averavr*' of 'J.O.') tons per aere. 
 
 Data are not available for making; a true average of tlie above yields. 
 After ver>' careful consideratitm and consultation with competent 
 authorities, the conclusion has bcni r»*ached that a yield of l.'tO tons 
 of raisins per acre is a reasonable limi'" '■• ••-• f" ■•• <V'* rniinin^r farni 
 income in c«)nnection with this stmly. 
 
 Prices. — The price of raisins has fluctuated widely. The averape for all 
 varieties for the ]>eriod 1910 1914 was :{.41 cents per pound. From 
 1909 to 1926 the fluctuation was from l.OS to 12.61 cents, the latter 
 iKMii^r for the hifrh-price year of 1920.* Accordintr to A}rricultural 
 Extension Service Circular :{!>. prt-.scntinj; the 19;U) aj^ricultural outlook 
 for California, the averajre price paid to prowers has not been as hiph 
 as 4 cents since 1921, and in four of the past eiijht years th^ price has 
 Won '\ cents a pound or less, with an average in 1929 of '^.5 cents a 
 pound. 
 
 After consultation with those in close contact with the present eco- 
 nomic status of the raisin industry in California, a decision was reached 
 that a price of 3.25 cents a pound is th»' most satisfactory figure to 
 us<^ in connection with this study. Plate IV has therefore been made 
 up on the basis of this price and a yield of l.TiO tons an aere. 
 
 This chart, similar to Plates I ami II used for Navel oranpes and 
 I>each»'s, resi>ecti vdy. i>re.sents graphically the situation with reference 
 to costs of production and permissible irrigation water charpes for 
 raisins. The heavy lines indicatinp thi- assumed averapc yield of l.'iO 
 tons an acre and the assumed averapc price of 3.25 cents a pound 
 intersect at a point which indicates retiirns that will pay the avcrape 
 cost of pro<hicinp and ' " -tinp the crop, intrrest at 6 j)cr cent on an 
 averapc investment oi :_ lO an acre,t and leave a nj.irL'in of $7.75 
 per acre to cover irripation water and additional profit^ 
 
 • .<hoar. .SW.. and OouUl. H.K.. pA-onomlr Status of th« Qnipe Induntry. CttUfornla 
 AgT. Exp Sfa. r • ■" 
 
 ^ \srr.iK<- it- <-•. 1113. SO; lund, flSS; IroprovcnMnta and Mulpmont. 
 
 Its. 
 
 4— 80»9» 
 
50 
 
 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 PLATE IV 
 
 I I ^0 I ' I I '00 I I I I MO I I I I ItO I I I 
 
 DOLLARS PER ACRE INCOMt OR COST 
 
 RELATION BETWEEN COST OF PRODUCING AND HARVESTING 
 RAISINS AND FARM INCOME. 
 
PKKMISSIHI.E lUKlUATION CIIAKUt^^ 
 
 51 
 
 ('ii.\i'Ti:i; VI 
 
 ALFALFA 
 
 Costs of Production. 
 
 The iippor San .l«tiH|iiiii \ alU'V counties nw likely nlwnys to have a 
 Inrjro area in alfalfa, at least as lonp as irriuatinn wator is available at a 
 "perniis-sible'* I'ost. It is of ('«»urs«' jwimarily a dairy crop, yet it is 
 also prnwn for market hay and is a basic crop in field crop rotation. 
 For the latter, its us»« in cotton rotation is one of the best present 
 examples. The l!>29 crop survey gave the alfalfa acrea{?e for the entire 
 
 TABLt 2M 
 
 COST PFR tlTTINt. ASP VVH A( Rl « >r PHOtM ( INC AM) IIARV1STIN(. AIJ AI.FA. 
 
 FXCXL'SIVF OF INTlRIsr .VM> IRRICA I lt)N WAThR. AS I STIM \TI D 
 
 FROM KXPIRIKNCE AND GENERAL DATA AVAH-ABLl 
 
 ArtA, 40 tar- -r« 
 
 UpcTkUoo 
 
 Movinc 
 
 lUkiaf 
 
 Shorkiin 
 
 9Uekiaf 
 
 Bafiac 
 
 lfHr»ttr»n \%hf<r 
 
 ToUb... 
 Avmcc«a« par too 
 
 
 P*r 
 
 •Cf« 
 
 Per Cttttiac 
 
 P«« 
 
 HMO 
 
 to SO 
 
 
 13 00 
 
 25 
 
 
 1 SO 
 
 &0 
 
 
 3 00 
 
 1 &0 
 
 
 « 00 
 
 too 
 
 
 If) 00 
 
 1 00 
 
 
 A 00 
 
 II ^% 
 
 
 1 50 
 .S 00 
 3 00 
 
 too 
 
 
 
 151 00 
 
 tsw 
 
 COST PI ■ 
 
 ■ OF PP 
 
 TABLi: 2<t 
 wmi IRRir.ATIOS WATER SUPPLY 
 
 ToUl !■» hifii»> tort, per ttrr 
 
 HWTMll 
 
 HinrW 
 Bairn.: 
 
 OiOMt tnt' 
 
 Swrriiiriti 
 It 
 
 r 
 
 Ad:. 
 
 I' •« 
 
 II SO 
 
 S NI AR 
 
 I l> 
 
 «sru>f 
 
 Totel.. 
 Afwift cart pm loa 
 
 IS u 
 0«T 
 
 t M 
 3 M 
 
 •MOI 
 
 Mn 
 
52 
 
 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 San Joaquin Valley as 403,270, the acreages in the four upper counties 
 being Fresno, 54,830 ; Tulare, 54,663 ; Kern, 30,422 ; Kings, 21,209. 
 
 Cost-of-production datcT were not available from the Agricultural 
 Extension Service, except for Mercod County for 3926-28, and Imperial 
 County for ]928. Some specific data on this crop were, however, 
 obtained during the field study in the upper counties, and the estimates 
 of the Farm ]\Ianagement Section have been made available. Further- 
 more, alfalfa costs are perhaps more generally known than are the 
 costs for other crops. 
 
 Tables 28 to 31 present the data used in arriving at the conclusions 
 given. 
 
 TABLE 30 
 
 COST PER ACRE OF PRODUCING AND HARVESTING ALFALFA IN IMPERIAL COUNTY, 
 1928, AND IN MERCED COUNTY, 1926-28, EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST ON 
 INVESTMENT, BUT INCLUDING INTEREST AND DEPRECI- 
 ATION ON IMPROVEMENTS AND EQUIPMENT AND 
 COST OF IRRIGATION WATER 
 
 Data from Agricultural E.xtension Service circular 24. 
 
 
 
 
 Imperial 
 County 
 
 Merced County 
 
 
 1928 
 
 1926 
 
 1927 
 
 1928 
 
 Number of records 
 
 4 
 265 
 4.27 
 
 $28 74 
 6 34 
 5 04 
 
 11 99 
 
 5 
 133 
 5.16 
 
 $23 83 
 8 10 
 3 85 
 
 8 52 
 
 15 
 309 
 5.44 
 
 $22 72 
 5 77 
 3 79 
 
 13 04 
 
 4 
 
 Acres in study. 
 
 91 
 
 Average yield per acre, tons.. 
 
 6.42 
 
 Average cost per acre- 
 Labor. 
 
 $24 16 
 
 Materials (including water) . 
 
 11 90 
 
 Cost, overhead 
 
 3 65 
 
 Interest and depreciation (including irrigation 
 equipment) . .. . 
 
 11 75 
 
 
 
 Total costs per acre 
 
 $52 11 
 
 $47 11 
 $11 03 
 
 $44 30 
 
 $39 30 
 $7 61 
 
 $45 32 
 
 $40 32 
 $7 41 
 
 $51 46 
 
 Total costs per acre, less an assumed average water 
 charge of $5 per acre* 
 
 $46 46 
 
 Average cost per ton, less assumed water charge 
 
 $7 24 
 
 •There is still left interest on improvements and equipment other than that used for irrigation water. 
 
 TABLE 31 
 
 COST PER ACRE OF PRODUCING AND HARVESTING ALFALFA IN THE SAN JOAQUIN 
 
 VALLEY AS ESTIMATED BY THE FARM MANAGEMENT SECTION 
 
 OF THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE 
 
 Does not Include interest on land or cost of irrigation water; yield six tons in six cuttings. 
 
 Upkeep of irrigation ditches $2 70 
 
 DLskitig two ways during dormant season 2 20 
 
 Mowing 3 78 
 
 lUking 1 86 
 
 Shocking 2 16 
 
 irrigation labor 3 55 
 
 Stacking 6 30 
 
 Haling 18 00 
 
 Hauling to cars 9 72 
 
 Taxes 2 00 
 
 Depreciation 2 60 
 
 ToUl $54 77 
 
 Average ooat per ton $9 13 
 
PERMISSmiT. IRRIGATION CnARfJFS 53 
 
 The costs sot up in th«» nbovo tiil)I«^s. althoii(;h not fipurod on an 
 >»ntir«*ly comparable basis, do not (b'part wiflely from each other, 
 ••xc»'pt in one case nf \n\\ \ i»«I(l. (Ifnt-rally they ranfri- from about $7J)0 
 ro about $1> a ton. or fmm $1.') to $.'»! an at-rr for a six-ton yield, obtained 
 from six cuttin>r>. With a yieM of five tons to tlie acre the cost per ton 
 wouhl be slijjhlly hi<»her. 
 
 Present irrigation water eosts an aere in the various upper San 
 
 ' "'"ix Valley projects under whiidi alfalfa is lar>»ely prown, as set out 
 
 I ipter VI 1 1. Tables 4'J. 4S. and '>:i. vary considerably. In the 
 Kern Hiver Delta, they ranjre from 40 cents to $2; in the Ilanford 
 iri'a. from IX) cents to $12.4'). and under the Kaweali Delta canals, from 
 fl to ^-J.l!') ; or. for the various areas, .say from ;')() cents to $3. In many 
 cai-Ncs there is an additional I'ost for opcratinj; private pumpintj plants. 
 Costs cited under pumping plants (Tables 44, r»0. 55 and 56, includiu}? 
 the plants uniler which alfalfa is one of the principal crops irrigated) 
 ranpe from $H.<)() to .$L'.{.»ii). the hi^dier costs under the pumpiuf: plants 
 obviously beiufr unwarranted, exi-ept under particularly favorable 
 conditions? and pood management, and therefore in no sense a guide for 
 project planning. 
 
 Income from Alfalfa and Amount Available for Irrigation Water Charges. 
 
 Yi'hl. — The Caliioniia cmp n port for in2'> pives the average yield for 
 alfalfa in the state for 1!>LM;. i:>27. and IK'JS. as 4. 4.20 and 4.20 tons 
 I>er acre, respectively. This is much below a normal yield on pood 
 alfalfa land in the up|>er San Joaquin Valley. A "pood" yield should 
 be at least six tons jier acre, but a yield of five tons is considered as 
 hiph as is ju.siified from whiei' ♦<> -stimate a permi.ssible water charge. 
 
 Pricf. — Alfalfa prices are not >iLrrivrafed from those of other tame hay 
 in the California crop report. However, prices paid to the prower in 
 the San .loarpiin Valley were obtained from the Farm Manapement 
 Section of the College of Apriculture for the years 1910 to lf>2'^ The 
 ' 'hted avi'raire for this nin- ' 'ar period was .$14.15 a ton ami 
 
 t;. ...;ipe from $7.17 in l!H4. to .r_. .7 in 11»20. For the perio<l r.»21 
 to VXl^, which d(M>s not include the unM>ttled war pcrio<l or the period 
 of generally lower prices b«'for«' the war, the average was $15.55 and 
 the rarii.'<' frf>m $12. n<) to $i;> 05. An a\ price of $14 a ton is 
 
 evidently a safe fipure to use for the puri ^ 'bis r<'port. in spite 
 
 of the much lower fipure prcvailinp in 19M0. 
 
 With a prmluction an<l harvesting cost for alfalfa of $9 n ton, 
 exelusive of interest and irripation •■ * • --on- 
 able in the lipht of t' ' ■• • - -diiit • i ;,..;. w. .. i. ,.i.. ...' — 
 
 and a > ield of five ; the ti'' -f to the grower is $45 an 
 
 acre At $14 a ton the pross income would be $70, leaving a margin of 
 $25 an acre to cover ir on the ir nf. irrigation water, and 
 
 y>- •'•• ^ .....:.... . j,..r „pp, f,,. ,.,i,.i_ including imi)rovements 
 
 a l.'t an acre would l>e left for irrigation water 
 
 und additional profits. 
 
54 
 
 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 ANNUAL CROPS 
 
 Grain. 
 
 The crop survey for 1929 made by the State Engineer's office showed 
 102.000 acres of grain in the three upper San Joaquin Valley counties. 
 This was divided between Tulare County with 10,089 acres, Kings 
 County with 53;310 acres, and Kern County with 38,805 acres. There 
 is some dry-farmed grain, but from the standpoint of the present study 
 the industry is of chief imjiortance in the Tulare Lake area, where all 
 of the grain is irrigated. There is some grain irrigated from pumping 
 on the west side in Fresno County, but otherwise, outside of the Tulare 
 Lake area, grain is irrigated in the upper San Joaquin Valley only 
 where water is available under gravity ditches, or from relatively low 
 pumping lifts, or where the grain is grown incidentally with other crops 
 and is irrigated only to fill in the pumjung load and only the cost of 
 power is charged to the grain. So far as grain is concerned, the 
 present inquiry has therefore been confined to the Tulare Lake area. 
 In this report the grain referred to is chiefly wheat and barley. 
 
 Grain growing in the Tulare Lake Basin is conducted on large 
 acreages. Cost-of -production data gathered for the report were obtained 
 for approximately 18,000 acres, in holdings varying from 304 to 
 6,950 acres. In some cases the figures represent the growers' general 
 experience, rather than the costs for a particular year. 
 
 The data are not equally complete, but the substance of the material 
 obtained, as far as it can be tabulated, is given in Table 32. General 
 cost-of-production figures that could not be included in the tabulation 
 were obtained from several prominent growers and these were con- 
 sidered in arriving at the conclusions given. No attempt has been made 
 to treat wheat and barley separately. 
 
 TABLE 32 
 
 COST PER ACRE OF PRODUCING AND HARVESTING GRAIN ON SEVEN 
 TRACTS IN TULARE LAKE BASIN 
 
 
 
 Total cost of 
 
 
 
 
 production and 
 Fiarvrsting, not 
 
 
 Number 
 
 Area in acres 
 
 Cost of irrigation 
 
 
 
 including interest 
 
 water, per acre 
 
 
 
 or irrigation water 
 
 
 3 
 
 3.353 
 
 $20 17 
 
 S8 10 
 
 ."•i 
 
 1,100 
 
 19 53 
 
 8 98 
 
 6 
 
 
 16 65 
 23 39 
 
 
 1 
 
 1,S52 
 
 482 
 
 8 
 
 828 
 
 19 10 
 
 8 80 
 
 9 
 
 304 
 
 18 31 
 
 8 80 
 
 10 
 
 4,160 
 
 17 13 
 
 6 30 
 
 The lolal cost of jjroductiou Jiml iiarvesting for numbers 5 and 10 
 included an item (tf $8.63 an acre for harvest costs estimated at the 
 same rate as u umber 6, for wliich tlierc were good cost iigures available. 
 The average tola! cost of jiroductiou, using all ranches for which figures 
 are included, wa.s $19. IS .-m acr(\ lOIimination o1" those for which 
 
PBRMI1S8IIU.K IKKIOATIUN CIIAKUES 55 
 
 I'stinintea of liarvpst costs \vi»rt* made, jrivrs nn avcrajfff of $19.52. This 
 ■ n hIIowmuci' fur tlt'pnfiation on «'<|uipm('nt. tax«'.s, insurHMCf, 
 
 .;.... n not othtTwi.so itu*lmlt'<|. for jmuTHl ••.xiH'ii.sf.s, p.stiniat<'«l at 
 
 I flat rate of 50 cents an acre. Nothing is included for interest on the 
 invt»stment or for irri^ration water. Adding irrijration water at an 
 NmI cost of $7.r)() HM acre, which is npprtixiiiiatcly the nuiiHTical 
 .. „'(' of the timjrcs .shown in Tabic 'V2, and interest at G per ct-nt on 
 land at $1(M) an acre and on farming e(piipiiiciit at $7 an acre, makes 
 ;i total of $.'U an acre to cover all costs. This is on a basis of 20 sacks 
 of wheat an acre, a yield which a number of the >;rowt'rs stated is a 
 fair avcraj;e. This sliows a total cost of producin^r and harvesting; 
 wiieat of aJ)out $1 2() per hundred with the wheat wi'i^'hinjj "i'l'i pounds 
 .1 sack. 
 
 This is low«T than timires supplied by s<«veral of tin- la^^re jjrowers 
 .»nd probably indicates, ainone other things, that the s-njrirested average 
 of 2n sacks an acre is too hi<^'h. On f>ne larjre h«>Idintr in 11>29, for which 
 .1 complete cost record is available, the cast was $1.56 per hundred, and 
 on 'another. $1.79. In peneral. prowers' estimates rantre from $1 to $2 
 
 • ^ hundred, and one lar^e operator estimated an average of $17'). 
 
 Ken to};ether. the data indicate that the usual cost is somethinj; less 
 than $1.75 per hundred. 
 
 The question now ari.ses as to whether the irrijration water charge 
 of .$7.50 an acre referre«l to In the previous parajrraph is justified. That 
 will, of course, depend upon the price received. A prominent prain 
 irrower in the Tulare T.,ake area suL'jrested that a price ranpe of $1.^5 
 to $2.50 per hun<lred can be assumed. Computations made by the Farm 
 Section of the r'nlleire of Agriculture for the period 
 . _ • . _ • -iiow a ranjre of $1.70 to $2.50. f . o. b. shipping point, with 
 the conchision that $1.90 is a safe fitrure to u.se in makinjr computations 
 <»overinp a period of years. On the basis of an averape cost of $1.75 per 
 hnndred. the margin of prf)tit would b«* 15 cents per hundred above all 
 ..^.t. ... 1 inti^rest at per cent on the average investment. On this 
 at prowinp in the Tulare T..ake basin probably wotdd not be 
 considered attractive to the averape prower. In other words, with irri- 
 
 ion water costinp $7 50 p«>r acre per year, the indtistry probably 
 -■'Uld be left to thoH«' \vf :M prfMhice at a lower fipure and those 
 
 who are in a position to vj r,. on a hipher price. 
 
 fable 50 on present irripntion posts shows a ranpe in cost of water of 
 
 $7.90 to $19.60 an acre to irripators on weven fanns usinp pumpinp 
 
 to stipfdement the supply ftr " 1 by Corcoran Irr ' 
 
 • •' — w.t't. In the caso of three puJnp "'s under which ;i: 
 
 50 per cent of the area was in prain. tli is from $s 70 to $1.') ' ' ' 
 
 In the di.sou.ssion preeedinp Table 50 the irnpation water cost per acre 
 on 33.53 acres of wheat and barley is piven an $.S.10 an acre. 
 
 Th»' ' . • • t the • ' ' .'tion and yield flpiires 
 
 used !. '• for ; >.. It mipht l>e st«tc<l 
 
 further that one larpe prain prower reporte<I costji of irripation water 
 varyinp from $.1 to $H an acre. Another pave a peneral flptire of $4 75. 
 ^' " •• crop wa«« more than two-thirds barley, reported an 
 
 - not seem feasible to reach a final conclusion as to permi*tible 
 irripation water eo«tts for prain in the Tulare Lake Basin on any other 
 
56 DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES 
 
 basis than present water costs and the general conditions which sur- 
 round grain growing, because the data available do not permit of a sta- 
 tistical analysis. While the data indicate the present average cost of 
 water in the Tulare Lake grain section approximates $7.50 per acre per 
 year, this is a higher figure than is considered safe to use for state plan- 
 iiing for water importation. Hence an abitrary figure of $6 per acre per 
 year is suggested with a full realization that some growers w.ill be able 
 and willing to pay as high as $8 or $10, but also with a realization that 
 to some $6 will be considered a burdensome charge. That is approxi- 
 mately 60 per cent of the average pre-harvest cost of producing the 
 crop, not including interest and the water charge, indicated by the 
 records and estimates used herein. It should be remembered, however, 
 that this applies only to the Tulare Lake area, where large-scale grain 
 farming is the rule. 
 
 Cotton. 
 
 The cotton industry in the San Joaquin Valley, while of recent 
 origin, has come to be an important one, with a total area in 1929, 
 according to the crop survey by the State Engineer's office, of 256,853 
 acres. The 1929 plantings in the four upper counties, according to the 
 same source, were Tulare, 69,534 acres ; Kern, 64,306 acres ; Fresno, 
 60,512 acres ; Kings, 22,033 acres. 
 
 Despite the generally pessimistic view of the cotton industry in the 
 San Joaquin Valley, taken perhaps mostly by those not growing this 
 crop, the present size of the industry in the valley requires that it be 
 taken into account in any present planning. The long, warm growing 
 season and the favorable soil conditions in portions of the valley result, 
 under good management, in average yields of about one bale to the acre, 
 with better growers expecting 1.5 bales. 
 
 Three sources were drawn on for cost-of-produetion data. These 
 include 22 records obtained by the Agricultural Extension Service in 
 Kern County from 1926 to 1929, of which three were for renters and 
 not used; five records for 1929 obtained* in the field, and five estimates 
 supplied by large ranch managers. The data are summarized in 
 Table 33. 
 
 In that table the estimates of ranch managers are appreciably lower 
 than actual costs obtained from the other sources. Without doubt one 
 of the reasons for this is a lower allowance for depreciation. Another 
 is the greater economy in the large-scale operations. In the case of 
 liarvest costs, the estimates of the managers are based on contract prices, 
 this presumably accounting for the closeness to uniformity. 
 
 Table 34 presents cost-of-production and harvesting data as worked 
 up by the Farm Management Section of the College of Agriculture, the 
 figures inchi(li7ig allowances for (loi)rociation on work animals and 
 equipment, but (.mitting interest and irrigation Avater. 
 
 The figures in Tables 33 and 34 present sufficient variation to warrant 
 (lifTerences of opinion as to what should be assumed to be average costs. 
 
 In the case of both pro-harvest and harvest costs it will be noticed 
 Hint, so far as records gathered iji the field are concerned, the figures 
 taken from the Ajrricultural Extension Service enterprise efficiency 
 studies lie between the figures or estimates of ranch managers and those 
 
TABIi: .u 
 Sl-MMXRY OF n\r\ Rll ATIN<. Tt> ( OSI PI R A< Rl (>l PROtMt IN<. ASH HARM ST- 
 
 iNi. nn roN IN nil i fpi h svn jDAyiis valii y. i xc.lumvi oi- 
 
 INTIRIST 1>N Tin; I I AND Tilt COST Of IRRIGATION 
 
 \N STIR. lU'T Willi Ki . iM<l>S tm ISTIMATI S OV PRIS- 
 
 ENT IRRU.A1K)N WATl.R CIIARt.lS 
 
 1 
 
 Sour* et Jala 
 
 \m in srrni 
 
 T .i.l 
 I- 
 
 f 1 ' 
 
 Bwrnrteoit 
 
 r-rbaWof 
 OpoaixU 
 
 TeUl 
 
 «alfaMl«d 
 
 t^ramti rrmt 
 
 Cfdi..... 
 
 No. !-• 
 
 547 
 
 TO 
 
 ■' .1 1 
 
 ('■> 
 
 
 
 >t33 IS 
 
 •■•1 '>■. 
 
 ■;.i '■..' 
 
 •.11 :ii 
 '.11 i«i 
 • \j III 
 '.11 1*1 
 •1' :■■ 
 
 r.« .'1 
 
 ■ ,11 i«i 
 •tj :.'> 
 
 Ml U 
 
 :i .> 
 
 ' ■ It! 
 
 .1 . ■ ■ 
 
 ■ t '•■ 
 
 1 
 
 63 U 
 
 110 ■>i 
 •1? 00 
 
 No. l-b ' 
 
 .No. l-e _ 
 
 ■i; 00 
 •i: 00 
 
 So. J 
 
 SaJ 
 
 Sa4 
 
 No.1 
 
 No. J 
 
 •10 so 
 
 •«» 
 
 •* 75 
 
 Sa 3 
 
 
 Sou* 
 
 NaS j 
 
 •10 00 
 
 ■■ (Unr-. t JO 5.' to U9M Ml I 
 
 ' Hmatit. »J»J7 t- •!' ' • - b^. 
 
 • B^dfif Wliflifttc ^ ^-rv* ftv (j«*f<..cLa(inn in r^ticlk nuna^pm* miioiaUa a/ frv^-Karrvat msi not enmp^fmtjA 
 
 «Mk »BovmMt b olbcr nconk 
 
 TAULk M 
 
 COST PKR .\CT<F OF PR(>IlLtIN«. AMI HARVIsriN*. (OTTON IN TMF KFRN AND 
 
 TtLARF ARFAS AS SI T IP H\ FARM MAN \< .1 \tl N| .SI C I ION. COl.l.F«.l *»F 
 
 ACiRICULTTJRt. INCXLOISt. Dl PRI C lATION ANn INTFRFST ON WORK 
 
 STOCK A.NI> lOllPMF.NT. BIT WITIIOirT ALLOW AN(F FOR 
 
 l.VTIRI ST ON LA.ND OR IHRU.ATU»N WATIR 
 
 Amomti ykU p«r ten. 500 pauA of lort ud lOOO pomdi ol Mad. 
 
 Coltuv lUlki 10 M 
 
 Pto«ii>« I n 
 
 li^>lD«- . t II 
 
 Dukr-t 1 41 
 
 Ha- " 1« 
 
 U. 1 .-> 
 
 PknUii " ■ 
 
 SHd, 2S 
 
 oybvBtuw (.-...,. >' 
 
 riMVpiat Md Uoar. 
 
 IImI^ fr— '-^^ 
 
 HMiW 
 
 (it 
 
 I;', ri 
 
 TeU. 
 
 Fortiaafar pr*-kanwl cote 
 PorlMi ior Urtwl oertt 
 
 I obtained from prowors. Thf prp-hnrvi«st fiifun* of the Farm Mnn.i •- 
 mpnt ^ • 
 
 CtlltUI.i. i.x 
 
 the Farm M I the i 
 
 others Tho Farm .M.ina;;rini'nt Section fipures, n Hhotild be remem- 
 
58 
 
 DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES 
 
 bered, are based on productive labor necessary in efficient management, 
 and on larger farm units than are the basis of the Agricultural Exten- 
 sion Sorvieo costs. They are intended to be applicable only under the 
 particular conditions on which they are based and are in no sense set 
 up as an average. 
 
 Because of the belief that the best results in cotton in the future will 
 be obtained by combining it on smaller acreages with alfalfa, and as 
 this probably will result in increasing botli costs and yields, a total cost 
 of $65 an acre for producing and harvesting this crop, on a one-bale 
 yield basis, has been arbitrarily assumed. This would involve a slightly 
 higher efficiency than is reflected in the present Agricultural Extension 
 and large-grower records, but a higher cost than that indicated by 
 the figures of the Farm Management Section and the ranch managers' 
 budget estimates. The better growers will have somewhat lower costs, 
 and. as the poorer lands are eliminated, an average of $65 per acre 
 should be a safe figure for use in planning water development. 
 
 Income from Cotton and Amount Available for Water Charges. 
 
 Yield. — The assumption of an average yield of one bale to the acre 
 in the upper San Joaquin Valley, with the better growers expecting 
 1.5 bales, has already been referred to. Some growers will not plant 
 land to cotton that will not yield three-quarters of a bale per acre. 
 Others place the lower profitable limit at one bale. The lint yield for 
 eighteen Agricultural Extension Service records available ranged from 
 0.72 to 2.52 bales to the acre, Avitli a numerical average of 1.35 bales. 
 The unweighted average for the three large-grower records, for which 
 actual costs, rather than estimates, arc available, was 1.20 bales to the 
 acre. 
 
 As a basis for estimating permissible irrigation water charges it is 
 concluded that a yield of one bale to the acre is justified, knowing that in 
 times of good prices some land producing less than that will be planted. 
 
 Price. — Table 35 gives the December 1 farm price of cotton in Cali- 
 fornia from 1910 to 1928. The range is from 7 to 43 cents and the 
 numerical average is 20.5 cents. The October. 1929, to June, 1930, 
 average was 16.25 cents and the June, 1930, price was quoted in the 
 field at 12 cents. 
 
 TABLE 35 
 DECEMBER 1 FARM PRICE FOR COTTON IN CALIFORNIA, 1910-1928 
 
 Year 
 
 P^ice in cents 
 per pound 
 
 Year 
 
 Price in cents 
 per pound 
 
 1910 
 
 1.T.3 
 7.5 
 12.5 
 13.0 
 7.0 
 11.2 
 20 
 28 
 30.0 
 43 
 
 1020 
 
 30.0 
 
 1911 
 
 1921 
 
 17.0 
 
 1912 
 
 1922 
 
 26 
 
 1013 
 
 1923 
 
 32 
 
 1914 
 
 1924 
 
 24.0 
 
 1915 
 
 1925 
 
 22 
 
 1910 
 
 1920 
 
 14.0 
 
 1917 
 
 1027 . ... 
 
 21.0 
 
 1918 
 
 1928 
 
 19.5 
 
 1919 
 
 
 
 
 
 Authority, California Crop Report, 1928. 
 
PERMIRSIBIJ: IRKinATins* chakgeb 
 
 59 
 
 R^H^ftuse of the hiph war prices incIiMled in the table above, the 
 is not a sjifi> fii;urr to umv The p-rjeral feeling of (|iialifietl 
 
 ■ >i ;s is that, for irrigation phmniuf;, an assumed price to the 
 
 prower for lint of 1.') cents a pound, or $7") a bah*, is justified. To 
 this is added, for the purposes of this study, an item of $ir> an acre witli 
 a o!i.' bah' yiehl f<)r receipts from c<»tt()n seed, this l)einp at the rate of 
 llKK) pounds per acre at $'M) a ton. The latter is a general average 
 reported by the growers visited. Adding' the returns for lint and for 
 seed pives an averape income of $!>() an acre with a production of one 
 bale to the acre. 
 
 Plate V irr.f ' • • My prr> ili■^ ili«- i-N>ential data for a conclusion 
 repardinp a re.i- .• charpe for irripation water for cotton in the San 
 
 Joaquin Valley. The pre-harvest and harvest cast is repre.sente<l by 
 the curve AB. Curve CI) n-presents pre-harvest and harvest costs an<l 
 in* " • at 6 per cent on a valuation of $17.') per acn-, iiu'ludinp an 
 in lit of .*40 per acre in improv.Muents and equipnu'tit. (^urves 
 
 FF, (ill. an»l /./ repnvsent increases of $5 per acre each. 
 
 It will be notetl that the line representinp the a.ssumed yield of one 
 bale to the acre and the line n^prest-ntinp the assumed price of 15 cents 
 a pound interstrt at $*.M) an acre, or ifH.'iO above the amount necessary 
 to pay pre-harvest and harvest costs with one-bale yield and interest at 
 6 per cent. 
 
 The records or rstimates of irripation water costs for the «'nterprises 
 considereil in the present stud> -•••• Table \V.\) show a ranpc of from 
 
 PLATE V 
 
 CO - I ^ »»• • 
 
 3 : S : 
 
 mnmt rt' t* km 7 
 
 
 1 1 1 1 
 
 1 1 1 1 
 
 ' '\ 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 v\\ 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 N^' 
 
 £^ » »...«..■ 
 
 RELATION BETV 
 
 rOST OF PROnUCIMO AMD HARVCtTINO 
 N AND FARM INCOMR. 
 
60 
 
 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 94 cents to $25.17 an acre, with a u^ial cost of $10 to $12. Costs where 
 cotton is grown, as given in Chapter VIII, are of the same general 
 order, being high under pumping systems in Kern County and the 
 Tulare Lake areas and low under gravity systems. 
 
 Miscellaneous Crops. 
 
 The term "miscellaneous crops" usually includes such annuals as 
 corn, sorghum, grain, and beans, and, where not grown as specialty 
 crops, would also include vegetables and other truck crops. Ordinarily 
 their water requirements — one or two irrigations per season — are about 
 the same and, when not grown as specialty crops, none of them stands 
 apart from the others as to permissible irrigation charges. A moderate 
 charge for irrigation water for such crops is always assumed. No 
 special inquiry was made in connection with the present study regarding 
 costs of producing these crops, the thought being that present charges 
 for irrigation furnish an adequate guide for them. 
 
 Table 36 presents present irrigation water costs under a number 
 of typical San Joaquin Valley irrigation sj'stems which include in their 
 irrigated crops substantial percentages of general crops. 
 
 TABLE 36 
 
 COST OF WATER AT DELIVERY POINT UNDER SOME TYPICAL SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 
 
 IRRIGATION SYSTEMS SERVING SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGES 
 
 OF MISCELLANEOUS CROPS 
 
 System 
 
 Year 
 
 .Approximate 
 
 annual cost 
 
 of water to 
 
 irrigators, 
 
 per acre 
 
 
 1927-28 
 1927-28 
 1927-28 
 1927-28 
 1927-28 
 1927-28 
 1927-28 
 1927-28 
 1927-28 
 1923-29 
 1923-29 
 1923-29 
 1923-29 
 1923-29 
 1926-29 
 
 >S1 85 
 
 
 >9 00 
 
 NIodesto Irrigation District _-_. 
 
 '5 00 
 •6 45 
 
 Turlock Irrigation District 
 
 ^ 50 
 
 Wat<*rford Irrigation District 
 
 '6 35 
 
 
 '9 50 
 
 Oonsolidated Irrieation District 
 
 '2 20 
 
 Fresno Irrigation District .. 
 
 '2 50 
 
 Consolidated Peoples Ditch Company 
 
 M 76 
 
 Kv&ns Ditch Comoanv - .__'_-- 
 
 "2 94 
 
 Farmers Ditch ComDanv 
 
 '1 05 
 
 Lateral companies under Last Chance Ditch 
 
 Empire Water Company 
 
 '$1.28 to 1.47 
 n 00 
 
 
 <0 80 
 
 
 
 > Sec Bulletin 21, DiN-ision of Engineering and Irrigation, State Department of Public Works. In some cases 
 there is an additional cost for operating private pumping plants and for maintenance of sccondiry laterals. 
 
 > From Chapter VIII, Tables 42, 48 and 53. In some rases there is an additional cost for operating private pump- 
 ing plants. 
 
 Costs given in the above table are, with three exceptions, seen to be 
 much higher .in the irrigation districts than under the mutual and 
 public utility companies represented bj' the last six listed. The sys- 
 tems \vlii<'h have all-season or nearly nil-season water are perhaps best 
 typified by .such enterprises as the .Modesto and Turlock irrigation 
 districts, both of these having storage and a full gravity supply and 
 both having aceonii)l.ished the development of most of their irrigable 
 acreages. It is tlie conclusion of this report that $5 an acre is a 
 reasonablt! charge for inisccl!;nii'(ins crops in the upper San .To.Trpiiji 
 Vallev counties. 
 
ISSIBLE IKKKUTION CUAKQES Gl 
 
 ClIAPTKR Vlll 
 
 COST OF WATER TO IRRIGATORS IN THE UPPER 
 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 
 
 Studies of tlu' cost of water to certain irrijjators in Kind's, Kern 
 and Tulare counties were carried on con<'urrently with those on the 
 cost of crop production. Kxe«'lh>nt eoopi-ration was reeeived from 
 officials of the irrijration districts, water companies, the two power 
 companies and the many individuals calle<l upon for information. 
 
 Examination of the tables wliieh follow will di.sclose that it was 
 po«vsible to obtain the cost to irri^rators of fjravity water supplied by 
 in<»t of the important pravity systems, but that the nund)er of farms 
 served by individual pumpinj; plants upon which it was possible to 
 obtain reliable data within the time available is a very small part of 
 the total nund)or. Within Kin>;s, Kern, and Tulare counties approxi- 
 mately ll.dOO electrically operated pumping; plants, not to mention a 
 smaller, but unknown number of enpine-<lriven punjpinj; plants, supply 
 iripation water, both within and without areas receivinp gravity water. 
 
 The cost of water to the irriirators receivinp water from an irriga- 
 tion district or water company in any one year or proup of years nuiy 
 either bo more or less than the cost to the district or company. Since 
 this .study is concerned with the cost of water to the irripators. an<l not 
 with the cost to the districts or companies, it is not nece.s.sary to 
 determine whether cluirpes made by the latter include all items of 
 co>t. such as depreciation. 
 
 Method of Determining Cost of Water Supplied by Fmrm Pumping Plants. 
 
 The following elements were considered as making up the cast of 
 water to irrigators using farm pumping plants: 
 
 1. I'ower charge for 1H29 irrigation season. 
 
 2. Repairs and lubrication. 
 
 3. Depreciation. 
 
 4. Interest. 
 ,5. Taxes. 
 
 I'owiT I lor r.>21^ wen* re«-eivi'ii directly from the .^southern 
 
 Califftrnia ;. .. n Company an<I the San .Joaquin Light anil I'ower 
 Company after the plant numlM»rs had Ix^on obtained in the field. 
 
 Information regarding ex|>enditures for repairs was obtaintnl from 
 individuals, but very few exact r^ were available. l'onHi>«|uently, 
 
 it was nece.s.sary to i: * ■ ii the ' * * ' ! and the 
 
 judgment of the in . ur eo^ , m varietl 
 
 from $45 for five-ho; er plants to $120 for 50-horHcpowcr plants. 
 
 Repair costs in the Tuiare Lake basin, where the quality of the water 
 
 • frejtarrd by C V «;ivAn an.J J K ••n. junior IfTlffatloo encln««ra. 
 
 DIvialon of Irrigation Inve«tivatton« and Vi~ — <, 
 
62 
 
 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 causes excessive corrosion, were from two to three times greater than 
 the usual amounts. 
 
 Depreciation was accounted for by setting aside annually an amount, 
 which, when accumulated with interest compounded annually at 4 
 l)er cent, Avould equal the first cost of the wells and pumps at the end 
 of their estimated periods of usefulness. The useful life of a well 
 usually was taken at twenty years. The life of deep wells in the 
 Tulare Lake Basin was estimated at from eight to ten years and some 
 shallow wells from which salty water is pumped were depreciated in 
 five years. The normal life of pumps and accessories was taken at 
 fifteen years, excepting those in Tulare Lake where ten years was used. 
 
 It has been suggested that the normal life of deep-well turbines 
 should be taken at twelve instead of fifteen years. Such a change would 
 increase the annual allowance for depreciation on deep-well turbines 
 from 4.99 to 6.66 per cent and would rai.se the estimated cost of water 
 supplied by farm pumping plants about 5 per cent in most instances. 
 
 The following table gives the percentage of first cost which must 
 be set aside annually to accumulate the first cost within the .indicated 
 time. 
 
 Useful life in 
 years 
 
 Percentage of 
 first cost 
 
 Useful life in 
 years 
 
 Percentage of 
 first cost 
 
 5 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 12 
 
 18.46 
 
 10.85 
 
 8.33 
 
 6.66 
 
 1.5 
 20 
 25 
 
 4.99 
 3.38 
 2.40 
 
 Interest was taken at 6 per cent of first cost and taxes at 1 per cent, 
 excepting in Kern County Avhere an annual charge of 75 cents per 
 horsepower of connected load was made. The assessor of Kern County 
 places a valuation of $25 per horsepower on all irrigation pumping 
 plants, including wells. 
 
 Cost of Water to Irrigators in the Foothill Citrus Belt. 
 
 The foothill citrus belt of the upper San fToa(|uin Valley, extending 
 from Kings R.iver to Edison, a few miles east of Bnkersfield, is supplied 
 almo.st entirely with irrigation water pumped from wells. Only small 
 areas are within reach of gravity water. Because of the restricted 
 nature of local ground water supplies, pumping lifts are higli, generally 
 ranging from 100 to 250 feet, and the capacity of a pmnpiiig plant 
 seldom exceeds 450 gallons per minute, the grealer number del.ivering 
 less than 200 gallons per minute. From 50 to 75 per cent of the pumps 
 used arc (h^cp-woll plungers. 
 
 The inf()i-ma1i(in obtained regarding the cost of water 1o irrigators 
 within this region is summarized in Tables 39, 40, and 41. 
 
 Tabic 89 sets forth water costs within three irrigation districts 
 which delivered water to 14,533 acres in 1929. The usual cost of water 
 to the irrigator was taken as the sum of the a.ssessments and water tolls 
 charged for the 1929 season. In each district the cost of water to 
 certain iiulividuals was determined. It is imjiortant to note the wide 
 variation between the usual charge marie by the irrigation district 
 
 r 
 
 1 
 
LK IRKIUATION* rHAKURS 63 
 
 ami the total I'ost of \vat<>r to individunls, particuhirly those usinjf 
 private piimpinjj plants to supplement the distriet supply. 
 
 Casts of water l«> irrijrators served by water companies are shown in 
 Table 40. It will Ih' notieed that the eosts of water delivered by eoni- 
 panies tlivertinjj gravity water have been eomputt'd by aildinj; assess- 
 ments and water tolls in l'.*'J'J to interest at (» per eent on the estimated 
 value of the capital stoek. The cost to irrigators in the companies 
 cleliverinp water pumpe«l from wells includes the assessments and tolls 
 for IP'JI) in addition to interest and depreciation on the investment in 
 works. 
 
 Table 41 includes the estimated costs of pumpinjj with individual 
 plants for three ownerships. Tlu* method ti.sed in determinintj cr)sts 
 has b«vn explained previously. The cost of water from individual 
 |)lants is subject to much jrreater variation than indicated l)y Tabic 
 41. In order to indicate the extent to which the cost of pumpinp varies 
 according to the capacity of the pumpint; plant, the pumpinp lift, and 
 the quantity of water jnim|>ed. Tables .IT and :{S have been prepare*!. 
 The costs of pumps aiul wells were based upon prices prevailinj; in 
 1929, and power costs were computed from the P-4-0 scliedule of the 
 Southern California Edisf>n Company. Depreciation was accounted for 
 by eslabli>hiii!.' a sirikiuir fund, the annual deposit amountinjr to 8.M3 
 I)er eent of the first cost of the pumpinp efpiipment and '\.'Mi per cent 
 of the well cost eorrespondinp to an estimatcfl life of ten and twenty 
 years, respectively. Interest was charged at G per cent and an addi- 
 tional 1 jx'r cent was allowed for taxes. Annual repairs were esti- 
 mated to vary from $4;'' for the ;Miorscpower plunper pump to $75 for 
 the 2r>-horsepower deep well turbine. 
 
 Co»t of Water to irpigatori in Kern County Served by Public Utility Water 
 Companies. 
 
 A preat deal of the area in Kern County now supplied with jrravity 
 water, exclusive of the Huena Vista Water Storape District, is serve*! 
 by public utility water companies controlled by the Kern County Canal 
 and Water Company. Hakersfield. These companies are .separately 
 iri' 1. altliouirh tliev are *<• \ by the controlling company 
 
 uie. . ;.. ..ireetion of a clii'f """ ..ad a superintemlent. In addi- 
 
 tion to these public utility • there are various private canals 
 
 diverting water, the majority of which are controlled and operate*! 
 by the Kern Cotinty Lanfl '" My. 
 
 The water supply ti'^ed l-.. mpanies is obtainetl from the 
 
 natural flow of Kern Kiver, the <i ns Iwinp poverned in the first 
 
 place by the Miller Ilappin apreement entered into by owners of lands 
 in the vicinity of Huttonwillow of the first i>art and the 
 
 variou.s canr!^ - lies ai;' '•'-..,• .,, -ts divertinp water in the 
 
 vicinity of i .! as j of the ...nd part, the apr<*ement 
 beinp broupht al>otit by the deeiiiion in the famous Lut vh Ilntjfjin suit, 
 which definite!}' r " " ' the prin- " ' • ■ ?s in Cali- 
 fornia. Later on. .... .-: i-erfc es- .. .,,. , ;.;... of •"-' '>f 
 
 the diversions of the par ;" the v . part to the Miller ;» 
 
 agreement, so that finally the diversion.s are made in accordance with 
 these two »!■ in the case of the di\ -; not men- 
 
 tioned in the ><ii<i>'> nv i\<, <><^i<>rding to the dates of th* oij-ropriationa. 
 
64 
 
 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 n 
 W 
 CO 
 
 < 
 
 ^ 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 OQOO 
 
 oooo 
 
 
 
 ■^00 »-"00 
 
 
 
 ■<r poccM 
 
 •^ OS eO ^ 
 
 
 C^ CO -"f lO 
 
 -^ i-i (NC^ 
 
 £ 
 
 QSfc 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 S. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •t^ 
 
 ^3 
 
 oooo 
 
 OOOO 
 
 8 
 
 O) 
 
 50 M Tt*<M 
 
 >."7" 
 
 CD CM Cl»/5 
 
 03CC t^ — 
 
 
 ^ i S 
 
 -H MCM CO 
 
 ri— i(N 
 
 
 ■3S« 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 Q rt fc 
 
 
 
 
 o o. 
 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 .*J 
 
 
 
 
 
 OOOO 
 
 OOOO 
 
 
 
 CM o »o »o 
 
 OOO t^ !0 
 
 
 
 oo_^t^ 
 
 ■«<toooo 
 
 
 "rt 
 
 •^l-" ^ 1— 1 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 oooo 
 
 OOOO 
 
 •s 
 
 
 lO^ Cit^ 
 
 oo — ooo 
 
 <2 
 
 IP 
 
 ^ CM CM CO 
 
 O — ^-H 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 4J 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 CO 
 
 oooo 
 
 oooo 
 
 «- " 
 
 lO CO »OCM 
 
 t^„r-r-c 
 
 
 B . t>C CX 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 ■2 2;s a 
 
 CO -^ iT^CO 
 
 -HIMNCO 
 
 a 
 
 «^ 
 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 oooo 
 
 oooo 
 
 
 
 CM CO^CO 
 
 CC-* if^ 1^ 
 
 
 L^ 
 
 CO -^ X>1^ 
 
 <MCO-0<0 
 
 
 o 
 
 c* 
 
 
 
 fe 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 pL, 
 
 
 
 
 
 oooo^^ 
 
 0O0Ot><— . 
 
 
 c 
 
 CO ^ CD Tt* 
 
 CO ^ CO-'T 
 
 
 - 2 
 
 eoi^CMio 
 
 CO t^c^ to 
 
 
 o ^ 
 
 ^'-I'c^fcM 
 
 ^i-i'c^ W 
 
 
 ■s- 
 
 «« 
 
 
 
 OT — ^ 
 
 
 
 
 O 03 
 
 
 
 
 "1 
 
 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 &H 
 
 
 Oioowa 
 
 0U500 
 
 
 CJ 
 
 ftr-tCMCq 
 
 1-1 1-1 (MM 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 <y 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 
 OOU^O 
 
 oomo 
 
 
 c 
 
 CM CDOO^ 
 
 C^ COOOiJ* 
 
 
 *- 2 
 
 -HifilOO 
 
 
 o ^ 
 
 ^^CM C^J" 
 
 i-r^(NC*i" 
 
 
 ■S:i 
 
 «fr 
 
 
 
 6| 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ss§s 
 
 g8gg 
 
 C^CO-^iC 
 
 
 W co-^ua 
 
 
 .5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ja 
 
 
 
 
 •»« 
 
 
 
 
 o. 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 »o lo »c I'a 
 
 OOOO 
 
 
 ^ D 
 
 1- 1- t-- r^ 
 
 iO >o »o »o 
 
 
 X." ■fr' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cya S 
 
 
 
 
 o. 
 
 
 
 
 gl 
 
 
 
 
 "&c 
 
 
 
 
 a-- 
 
 
 
 
 <SS 
 
 
 
 
 
 SSfg 
 
 ssds 
 
 ^ -^ C^J ci 
 
 
 
 •-^ t^ N M 
 
 00 
 
 u 
 
 CQ 
 < 
 
 H 
 Z 
 
 UJ 
 CI. 
 
 CO 
 
 Z 
 
 o 
 
 .J 
 
 < 
 (J 
 
 o 
 
 B 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 OOO 
 
 OOO 
 
 
 ■s 
 
 — « Oil^ 
 
 OiifiO 
 
 
 V 
 
 «•-• aj 
 
 If r^ r^ 
 
 i>«C^ CO 
 
 
 3 2" 
 
 
 C^ CO ^ 
 
 
 °i^ 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 
 k 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■*3 
 
 ^a 
 
 OOO 
 
 OOO 
 
 s 
 
 
 ^CDOO 
 
 CO too 
 
 o 
 
 OiQO-1 
 
 CO— c O 
 
 
 c^ eo»o 
 
 --(M(M 
 
 
 3fe « 
 
 «« 
 
 
 
 Q « S 
 
 
 
 
 O D. 
 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 OOO 
 
 OOO 
 
 
 
 t-cc » 
 
 cooo »o 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 •* CT.W 
 
 00 O-f 
 
 
 "rt 
 
 — -i(M 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 «» 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 OOO 
 
 OOO 
 
 o 
 
 
 CO coir 
 
 0>COC4 
 
 
 03 — 
 
 IP 
 
 
 ^ C^ CO 
 
 OS 
 
 « o 
 
 
 
 k* 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 09 
 
 OOO 
 
 OOO 
 
 «- " 
 
 ooco 
 
 00-* 
 
 
 a w c, 
 
 
 
 be 
 
 JESS 
 
 t^ON 
 
 ■*iOCS> 
 
 a 
 
 •fr •-« f-1 
 
 
 "S. 
 
 a 
 
 Ph 
 
 21" §. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OOO 
 
 OOO 
 
 
 
 N t^05 
 
 ■*U5 3> 
 
 
 fcri 
 
 CO T|«CO 
 
 cjcoir 
 
 
 v 
 
 «» 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 (^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 OOO 
 
 OOO 
 
 
 c 
 
 OOO 
 
 OOO 
 
 
 •S.2 
 
 OCO o 
 
 ococo 
 
 
 O -3 
 
 
 
 
 ■s-2 
 
 «* 
 
 
 
 03 — M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d, 
 
 i_ 
 
 us 
 
 >o 
 
 
 1 
 
 CO "3 t^ 
 
 coirt t^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cu 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 OT 
 
 
 
 
 »- 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 OOO 
 
 OOO 
 
 
 a 
 
 oc^ o 
 
 0>C>) CD 
 
 
 -o-S 
 
 
 0O--U5 
 
 
 ■^^ 
 
 
 
 
 tn — — 
 
 
 
 
 O « 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 sgs 
 
 0>Q0 
 CSIOJ CO 
 
 
 CM CM CO 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 D. 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^s 
 
 OOO 
 
 
 C3 
 
 U5 »0 "3 
 
 
 X.S -»> 
 
 
 
 
 111 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ & 
 
 
 
 
 «A 
 
 
 
 
 ?$ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1.H 
 
 
 
 
 i'ii 
 
 
 
 
 |l.:a 
 
 
 
 
 
 SS| 
 
 SS| 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
ri U\\.\. IHKhiATlOS ('IIAH(il'2> 
 
 er. 
 
 il 
 
 OB 
 
 3 
 
 
 r P 
 
 Si' 
 
 35 
 
 ^ te rt — 
 
 8 
 
 tti O 
 
 S 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 •8 
 
 i ^ 
 
 . -. e 
 
 hi 
 
 i 
 
 ■i 
 
 ^ li 
 
 i -a 
 
 f 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 ti 
 
 
 S 9 
 
 A 
 
 I 
 
 
66 
 
 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 o 
 CO 
 
 < 
 
 H 
 
 u 
 
 CO 
 
 w 
 
 D 
 
 X 
 H 
 
 8 
 
 lb 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 g» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 S 
 
 CO ^ 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 III 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t^cotort i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •• — coco 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 -< o. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^% 
 
 ^ ' >.'g 
 
 o 
 
 OU9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Im^ 
 
 
 
 
 ■S n c c S 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 01C4 
 
 
 
 -1 
 
 
 •» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■•» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >oooooo 
 
 
 2 8 
 
 S,o 
 
 s "s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I^CO CO CD ^ ift 
 
 
 SPm 
 
 " e.-S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ocoooo 
 
 
 CO C4 
 
 .S c 
 
 s o a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 a 
 
 1 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 O OCOO -^ (M M O ^ O ^ 1^00 »« 
 
 fc. 
 
 K 
 
 ■^c^ oiooo c^ OiM ^ ooc^ oo r* 
 
 11 
 
 05 
 
 l^?C <M OJ r^ :o CD :0 ^ — c^ ic ^ ^ 
 
 — s. 
 
 
 CC-"*" C^IMCOC^— C^»C^ ^ 
 
 a-^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 M 
 
 
 •S.i: 
 
 .5 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 o 
 
 COO oooooomoo o 
 
 !» .«^ 
 
 
 cscc -J^ 
 
 
 K c 
 
 5^ S 
 
 
 C^ c»3 cc 
 
 
 2 £ 
 
 
 •» 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 ■s 
 
 
 
 iss 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u. 
 
 C< 1 
 
 
 
 IcflW 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 St 
 a o 
 
 Cm 6 
 
 
 
 . • - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 fc-S 
 
 rt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ to 
 
 
 
 ' 1 
 
 
 •-« 
 
 MIO 
 
 »r~>raooo«e<iu5« h- 
 
 CO' 
 
 eo 
 
 lOCO 
 
 (N cc »« ec ec CO o CO -^ c*« 
 
 O O 
 
 V 
 
 •« 
 
 
 
 o-" 
 
 (2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SS« ^ 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 en "is .^" 
 
 3 ■- 2 =* 
 
 •a 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 'o 
 
 
 ■it 
 
 
 i 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 2m* i 
 
 sag e 
 
 •Ota E _; ^ 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 J2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 lA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 
 
 » u 
 
 
 tC 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ol^ O .CO 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OJ . 2 4J 
 
 b. 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 £• i 
 
 s"^. si s ^' s s sf 
 
 s 
 
 -^"s|s 
 
 "g 
 
 
 w 
 
 U^ tOMMM)tf)M)M'^ 
 
 "! ca ..-S M 
 
 
 c 
 
 2£c= cccccccg c — o a = 
 
 es 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 Mirti nrt«rt«««iicsSaa 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 .M fca.M k.k.k.^k.bb..fl..ia L. 
 
 s 
 
 
 ooc oooccoooo c 
 
 
 <N 
 
 oo 
 
 00«000<MOO— o 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 o «c 
 
 ^ -H c^ — C^OO lOOO o 
 
 
 |-;l 
 
 ■^ 
 
 cc — 
 
 — to •♦ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o c3 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 H J: n 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C 1 » ' ""t3 
 
 '2 >>>>*? 5? = 
 
 
 
 :§ 1:3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 m C B C e e9 
 
 
 
 '•S 1- J* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' c a S g s ^ 
 
 
 ; E *= s 
 
 
 >> 
 
 
 
 
 '•1 a e a a ^J 
 
 
 ;i ^1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 ■■a 'S a 
 
 : >. 1-g 
 
 
 OQ 
 
 
 
 Its :^ >. X >. t' S-S -S « ^:" 
 
 * r •- — w ^S -S -S S* ^ fc- fc- fc- X3 " 
 
 ;. i f'^ c c c c-^ (V ?* J' ?* * 3 
 
 
 eg 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 & 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i ^ 
 
 
 1 ' I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 '. I >• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; ^ 
 
 
 u § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c c 
 
 
 
 
 • & 
 
 
 B 
 
 
 IS. i 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 ? a. 
 
 
 
 
 
 E 
 
 e 
 
 il& £ 
 
 
 1 
 
 hil -1 111 1 
 
 • 
 
 v. 
 
 Ci 
 
 c 
 e 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 J 
 
 y 
 
 :2 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (X 
 
 ; 1 
 Ic7 
 
 =1 ^ 
 
 30, < 
 
 I 
 
 0) > 
 
 ^ ft» 
 wo 
 -o t. 
 
 5^ 
 li 
 
 '? a 
 II 
 
 n 
 
I'EKMISSIHhK IKKHiATU)N riURUHS 
 
 67 
 
 r!8 
 
 < 
 
 *l ^ 
 
 £ 
 
 S 
 5 
 
 
 X 2 
 
 u 
 
 OH 
 
 a. "* 
 a !/) 
 
 £ — 
 
 u. ^ 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 < 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 a 
 
 9 
 
 II 
 ^1 
 
 -••R 
 
 88S 
 5— 
 
 SS3 
 5-2 
 
 11 
 
 m 
 
 I 
 
 
 &S8 
 &2- 
 
 S8r: 
 
 53S 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 J 
 
 I 
 
 t f f 
 
 Hi 
 
 ij 
 
 1 
 
 ] 
 
 f 
 
 111 
 
 i 
 
(jy DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 The earliest r.ight is that of the Kern Island Canal, with an appropria- 
 lioii of :{00 t'libic feet per second as of JMiinary ], 1870, while the 
 dates of the original appropriations of the other canals range from 
 LS70 to 1876. 
 
 Deliveries are made by the utility companies under rules and regu- 
 lations established by the Railroad Commission of California in its 
 Decision No. 21973. Under these rules, deliveries are made to definite 
 unit areas in limited rotation periods and the maximum amount 
 delivered per acre during any rotation iieriod is definitely fixed. The 
 canals and laterals to the heads of the consumers' ditches are main- 
 tained and operated by the canal companies. The records of deliveries 
 are for the points where the water leaves the companies' canals and do 
 not give the actual deliveries to the land. 
 
 A summary of data relating to date of organization, principal crops 
 grown, areas irrigated, average amount of water diverted, amounts of 
 water delivered, charge for water, and average annual costs per acre 
 is given in Table 42. Attention is called to the fact that the average 
 annual costs of water per acre a,s given are not necessarily the total 
 average annual costs to the area served, as supplemental water is sup- 
 plied to some of these areas by private pumping plants. This is 
 particularly true of the areas served by the Central, and East 
 Side Canal companies and the Kern River Canal and Irrigation Com- 
 pany. There are no definite data available showing the extent of pri- 
 vate pumping for a supplemental supply under any of the canals. 
 
 The costs of water to the farmers under these companies bear no 
 definite relationship to the costs of operating the canal systems since the 
 present rates for water for at least the past 30 years have remained the 
 same. A petition is now before the Railroad Commission for an increase 
 in rates. 
 
 Under public utility water companies, the right to water service has 
 a value to the lands served. This right to service is somewhat similar 
 to water rights represented by capital stock in mutual water companies. 
 No definite valuation is being placed upon the right to service and no 
 interest is being included on this value in the cost of water figures 
 given. For this reason, annual costs of M-ater under public utility 
 water companies are hardly comparable with annual costs under mutual 
 water companies w^here interest on the value of capital stock is included. 
 
 Cost of Water to Irrigators in Kern County Served Exclusively by Farm 
 Pumping Plants. 
 
 Table 44 gives the cost of watci- lo ii-rigators on seventeen farms 
 in Kci'u County having a combined irrigated area of 1907 acres which 
 is served by 27 farm pumping plants. I'ower company records indi- 
 cate ai)])roxima1ely 2000 electric ])um])iiig ]ilants were ojierated withiu 
 the county in 1929. The first three farms listed in the table are located 
 south of Kciii Ivivrr, jibove the Ea.st Side Canal, while the others are 
 scattered over llie nuiin ]iumpiug area uorth of the river, extending 
 from Ro.sedale to w<'^t ol' I'ond Tiejir tlie north boundary of Kern 
 County. 
 
 The recent rapid increa.se in pum])ing south of Kern River, in the 
 I'ueiia ^'ista Lake, and near liuttonwilhiw. is of particular interest. 
 Before tlie introduction of gravel-envelope wells in these areas, irriga- 
 
rKKMissim.K iRKUiATKiv ■im.-.ai? 
 
 6y 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 §3118 
 
 ^ 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 ^T''.H 
 
 
 
 
 
 •i^rtn 
 
 1 
 
 c 
 
 Hi 
 
 Iq 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 X>- " 
 
 
 
 
 
 •ii H 
 
 
 
 
 
 > /. 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 5 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 ^ ■ • 
 
 t " 
 
 -' 
 
 ^ .- 
 
 
 M« W* 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 c z 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ / 
 
 \ 
 
 
 .-.5 
 
 
 ^ •- 
 
 
 => 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 — y 
 
 ' 
 
 *^ 
 
 
 
 ~ .M 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 
 *^ — 
 
 
 
 
 
 - / 
 
 a^ 
 
 
 
 
 — < 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ n 
 
 
 ^ * ^ . S SS9S|3 I I 
 
 S S< 
 
 s 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 •< c 
 
 2 ^«««» 
 
 ' — - s a-^* a 
 
 - 5, 
 
 -1-2 S-«« 
 
 rt — — e« 
 
 . ■ — w ^4 
 
 M«M-> I M 
 
 s =--* 
 
 1 
 
 l! 
 
 !l 
 
 it 
 
 is 
 
 7f 
 
 X 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 a / 
 
 at < 
 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 
 9 
 t 
 
 I I 
 
 
 
 W 
 
 Ill 
 
 ill 
 
 
 w < 
 
70 
 
 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 lion pumpiiifr was restricted because yields obtained from ordinary 
 stove-pipe \vells. which jienetrated the fine sands composinpr the water- 
 bearing: material, were not sufficient to make pumpin<? attractive, even 
 thougli the water table was near the surface. In drilling the gravel- 
 envelope wells, an 18-inch, clean-cut, perforated casing is landed at 
 depths of from 75 to 150 feet. From 25 to as much as 100 tons of gravel 
 is required to form the envelope on the outside of the casing. The pre- 
 vailing price of drilling is $3 per foot. Casing costs about $5.15 a foot 
 and rock is delivered for $2.35 a ton. The yields of these wells usually 
 range from 1200 to 2000 gallons per minute Avith ]iumping lifts of from 
 30 to 50 feet. The tabulation in Table 43 gives an estimate of the cost 
 of pumping from a gravel-envelope well 125 feet in depth using a 
 30-horsepower deep well turbine, capacity 1600 gallons per minute, 
 when the pumping lift is 40 feet. 
 
 TABLE 43 
 ESTIMATE OF COST OF PUMPING FROM A GRAVEL ENVELOPE WELL 
 
 Deep-well ti'rbine pump; assumed plant efficiency, 55 per cent; pumping lift 40 feet. 
 
 Acre feet pumped per annum 
 
 Cost of pumping per acre foot 
 
 
 Power 
 
 Other charges 
 
 Total 
 
 400 
 
 $1 31 
 1 07 
 91 
 
 $1 15 
 
 77 
 51 
 
 $2 46 
 
 600 .. 
 
 1 84 
 
 900 
 
 1 42 
 
 
 
 Annual fixed charges and repairs, included in "other oharges" in the above table, are estimated as follows: 
 
 Depreciation on well, 11,200 at 5 per cent $60 
 
 Depreciation on pump, 11,600 at 5 per cent 80 
 
 Interest on investment, $2,800 at 6 per cent 168 
 
 Taxes, 30 horse power, at S0.75 per horse power 22 
 
 Annual repairs on well and pump 130 
 
 Total annual charges, except power $460 
 
 Cost of Gravity Water in the Hanford Area, Kings County. 
 
 The northern part of Kings County, in the vicinity of Hanford and 
 Lemoore, is served by three large canals and several independent 
 laterals. The water supply is obtained from Kings River, these canals 
 being understood to have rights subse(juent only to the Fresno Canal 
 in date of priority. The Peoples Ditch, the upper of the three main 
 canals, serves a gross area of a]>]>roximately 60,000 acres in the north- 
 eastern portion of the eounty. chic^fly 1o the north and east of TTanford. 
 Tlic Last Chance Ditch serves the central i)oi-tion of about 33,000 acres 
 now embraced in the Jjucerne Irrigation District, and the Lemoore 
 Canal serves the Lemooi-e lirigalion District of about 52,000 acres 
 in the Avesteru portion of the area. 
 
 The diversions from Kings Kiver are made according to Schedule A 
 of the Kings Kiver Water Association. The schedule allotment for the 
 Lemoore Canal begins witli 70 second-l'eet with ;he i-iver stage at 200 
 second-feet. Tlie I'eoph's Ditch aUotment begins with 85 second-feet 
 with the i-iver stage at ;!()() second-feet and the Last Chance Ditch allot- 
 ment begins with 46 second-feet with the river stage at 450 second-feet. 
 The schedule allotments increase to a maximum of 450 second-feet for 
 
hi 
 
 rKKMI>«SIIU.K IRKHi.MloN .M\i.-.i-^ 
 
 71 
 
 rl 
 
 « 
 
 Jjiii 
 
 S 3SSS8 a SS= 8 3?) r!=3 3 
 
 > 
 
 § 
 
 X 
 
 M 
 
 s 
 
 I' 
 
 h 
 
 a. g 
 
 p 
 
 h5 
 
 if 
 
 - 7. 
 
 < 
 
 B'Bg 
 
 »• M -• r« -• -• 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 J 
 
 111 
 
 -•r> » — 
 
 s - 5 3 asa K 
 
 iii 
 
 
 
 r:3=: 3 
 
 — o o o — — o 
 
 h 
 o 
 C 
 
 
 •5552 
 
 - t « i 
 
 s 355;ss s sse S 3S S8S 8 
 
 I I ii 
 
 
 f 
 
 1 
 
 ! 
 
 < 
 
 I 
 
 : i 
 
 " a *.8|2 irf 
 
 I 
 
 1 1 
 
 < 
 
 J|! 
 
 s* t:^r.:i^ a a-4 ^ >-j^ 
 
 i 
 
72 
 
 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 the Lemoore Canal, 550 second-feet for the Peoples Ditch, and 325 
 soeond-feet for the Last Chance Ditch. T^ililc 45 gives a summary of 
 the diversion records for the past seven years. 
 
 TABLE 45 
 SUMMARY OF DIVERSION RECORDS, KINGS COUNTY CANALS' 
 
 Canal 
 
 Peoples 
 
 Last Chance 
 
 Lemoore 
 
 Average date of end cf run'. 
 
 Average length of run, days* 
 
 Annual diversion, acre-feet— 
 1923 
 
 August 10 
 294 
 
 149,336 
 83,167 
 170,703 
 129,011 
 217,131 
 119.067 
 100.527 
 
 July 19 
 189 
 
 63,829 
 18,270 
 63,738 
 52,492 
 97,125 
 45,162 
 36,456 
 
 September 8 
 303 
 
 125,360 
 
 1924 
 
 48,419 
 
 1925 
 
 95,059 
 
 1926. 
 
 81,671 
 
 1927 
 
 119,498 
 
 1928 
 
 70,305 
 
 1929 
 
 59,643 
 
 
 
 Average' 
 
 138,420 
 
 53,867 
 
 85,708 
 
 
 
 ' Kings River Water Master Reports, by Charles L. Kaupke; Division of Water Rights, State Department of Public 
 Works. 
 
 ' Days when the average daily flow was less than five sccon 1-feet not counted. 
 
 • The average annual run-off of Kings River for this jjeriod was 1,142,200 acre feet, or 64.8 per cent of the mean annual 
 run-off for the 34 year period, 1890-1929, inclusive. See table 40. 
 
 The run-off of Kings River during tlie period from 1923 to 1929 has 
 been below normal every year except 1927, as shoAvu in Table 46. 
 
 TABLE 46 
 RUN-OFF OF KINGS RIVER AT PIEDRAi 
 
 
 Run-off 
 
 Year 
 
 Acre 
 feet 
 
 Per cent of 
 mean 
 
 Mean (1896-1929, inclusive) 
 
 1,763,200 
 1,500,300 
 
 100 
 
 1923 
 
 85.1 
 
 1924 
 
 399,170 22 6 
 
 1926 
 
 1,2S2,300 , 72.7 
 
 1926 
 
 l,0itS,820 
 
 1,983,400 
 
 894,370 
 
 837.190 
 
 1.142,200 
 
 03.2 
 
 1927- 
 
 112.5 
 
 1928 
 
 50.1 
 
 1929 
 
 47 5 
 
 Mean (1923-1929, inclusive) . ... 
 
 64 8 
 
 
 
 ' From records of United .States Geological Survey. Records for 1923 to 1929 arc from unpublished records, suljjcct 
 to revision. a.s taken from ICings River Water Master Reports by Charles L. Kaii))ke. 
 
 Jii'Ciiu.sc of llic average low ruii-oli' oi" Kings Kiver during the last 
 twelve years, the M'ater supply to the lands served in Kings County has 
 not bci'ii adequate. Private inimping from wells in tlie northern part 
 of liie area lias grcally increased diii-ing Ihe past two or three years, but 
 no (hita arc availal)lc to show the extent of private pumping or the 
 amount of increase during the |)ast few' years on the area. The low 
 run-olT of the river and the increase in jiiix.ilc pumiiing have caused a 
 coiisi(h'rabh' lowering oi' the water table in some portions of the area 
 and tiiis has entirely changed the ii-rigation practices in .some localities. 
 Formerly, the water table was near the surface of the ground, espe- 
 cially in the nttrthern part of Ihe ai'ca which is devoted largelv to 
 
!*F.KMIS>i..i.i. i AilOV rHAHOtS 
 
 73 
 
 the prowin^ of tli'i'itluous fruits niivl viiu-s, of ton makiiifr it unner«'hsary 
 t.> irr 'jate th«\M» iTo; ip|>li«'af inn. A larpo nutnbor of stofk- 
 
 I ' • , ill till' ilit«-li ' •'•■•■ -• ••' • - «' ■'••'• M--TS fartliiT t(» 
 
 , h. During' tl . itioii of tn'on 
 
 aiiii viiu's lias bt'eomt' hum nul this has uiuloubt«'(lly Ixmmi 
 
 «>n«* nf the I'hit'f r for Ihf r«|iui jiii-rrasr in the aiiumiit of private 
 
 .,,,...:... AlfhiMi II 1 : <• irravity uator i*> innro ir«'n<'rally availahh- later 
 ;! ; M»u in tills area than in the Kaweah Itiver Delta, it is often 
 
 «losirablp to irriirate some of the crops after irravity water is no longer 
 to Ik* hatl. 
 
 N'<""- of tht II canals in Kin^s i ounty delivei-s waiir directly 
 
 to all of t' ■ rs. Six in(te|>etulent mutual water companies 
 
 and one i: rict distribute water fn)ni the IN'oples Ditch. 
 
 « >nly two of the companies, the Settlers Ditch Company and the MelL'a 
 I .<• t' •" -ly. own stfK'k in the I'eojties Ditch Company. Some of 
 
 •' -• •' • ^"tthrs' T^' 1 Company is owned in turn by the 
 
 M- L'.i < ..M.il ( . "»y, til 'TMii Irriiration District, ami by users 
 
 under some of the other till' The .M.ljra Canal Company owns 
 
 ' •'. both ■ ' itid S.'Ul.Ts Diteh companies and also in the 
 
 I T^'' ' . which diverts from the St. Johns Kiver. a 
 
 t 1 Kiver. The t'orcoran Irrigation District also 
 
 owns stock in both the Settlei-s ami l*eoples ditch companies, but ilivcrts 
 ifs I of the water, repn 1 by stock in both companies. 
 
 • ' • iiom the Peoples Di* ' <»ther four mutual water coin- 
 
 are known as *%lry di ■•ausr they own no water rights 
 
 nor stock in other companies. They were orpanizcfl to operate and 
 ifili'/ ditehes for stoekholders in the Peoples Ditcli 
 ' :;■ i is- also one incor|)ortated mutual water company 
 
 ' . nc a - ral. Holders of about 30 shares of stock in the 
 
 Peoples Ditch Company obtain water directly from the main ditch or 
 branches of the Peoples Diteh system. 
 
 T' 
 n.i:. . 
 in ♦h'» I 
 
 Tf... T, 
 
 tit mutual water < 
 
 .:f..i v.. r fi.... 
 
 he wafer 
 
 (' ,M .! 
 
 owned by the Kmpin- \* 
 
 ua'.r ' 
 
 tl . ,' 
 
 jM^rvcd by the Kmiur*- ^ 
 lar'/-' r 
 
 T ..... . . 
 
 tril)Mtini; 
 
 «wn stock 
 
 !i£r ownetl 
 
 ived I oinpaii Tli- Last 
 
 ■ r directly to owners of 
 
 , 1 T I T i".if ii ill r'liiiiii iri\ il'st !-itii|f I's wnti-r to the 
 
 any is 
 
 ' funpaiiy. a conf tributiii'^ 
 
 M the ^ ' ' by 
 
 ' " ich 
 
 • the area 
 I'ti to one 
 r Kilt ' ' ' 
 
 1 • ; a penern 
 Diir lie the t 
 
 for «t' 
 
 to rent their aitrplus stock. 
 ...'h to the 
 
 rent. 
 
 1' t" 
 
 the annual 
 
 r)rnt&. During the 
 
74 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 last few years the Corcoran Irrigation District has purchased and 
 rented a number of shares in both the Peoples and Settlers ditch com- 
 panies. Til is has resulted in a considerable increase in the value of 
 stock in these companies and has had a marked influence upon the 
 value of stock in the Last Chance and Lemoore ditch companies. 
 
 In 1916 the area served by the Empire Water Company on the east 
 side of Kin«rs River was organized as the Stratford Irrigation District 
 for the ])urpose of taking over the distribution sys-tems, but an agree- 
 ment was never reached. The district has not been active. In 1920 
 the area served by the Lemoore Canal was organized as the Lemoore 
 Irrigation District and the Stratford Irrigation District was included 
 within this district, although it did not disorganize. The primary pur- 
 pose of the organization of the Lemoore Irrigation District was for 
 participation in the proposed Pine Flat project. The gross area of the 
 district is 52,300 acres. The district has never taken over the irrigation 
 system of the canal company. 
 
 The area served by the Last Chance Ditch was organized as the 
 Lucerne Irrigation District in 1925 for the purpose of participation in 
 the proposed Pine Plat project. The gross area in the district is 
 83,407 acres. The district has not taken over I^ast Chance Ditch. 
 
 A summary of data relating to organization, value of stock, annual 
 assessments, and costs of water is given in Tables 47, 48, and 49. 
 
 Cost of Water to Irrigators Using Farm Pumping Plants in Tulare Lake Basin. 
 
 The principal supply of irrigation water in Tulare Lake Basin is 
 obtained from deep wells, which in this area usually penetrate to dejiths 
 of 1800 to 2200 feet. Formerly, artesian flow occurred from some of 
 these wells, but continued pumping has caused the water table to recede 
 until pumping lifts range from about 120 to 200 feet. 
 
 Deep M'ell turbines are used exclusively for pum]iiiig. Thirty to 
 50-horsepower units usually have ca])acities of from 500 to 900 gallons 
 per minute, while some larger turbines driven with lOO-horsejiower 
 motors pump as much as 2000 gallons per minute. AYater from the 
 deep wells contains gas and sulphur compounds which corrode both 
 pumps and well casing to such an extent that the usual life is considered 
 to be from eight to ten years. Repair eharges are corresjxmdingly high. 
 !<?1,000 per annum being considered a reasonable amount to cover repairs 
 to a dee]) well and ])umping ]dant in the lake bottom. 
 
 Within recent years water from shallow wells, usually ranging from 
 50 to 100 foct in dei)th, has been used to snipjilemeiit tlie sujijily from 
 deep wells in the eastern portion of the basin south of Corcoran. The 
 water from these wells is alkaline and is mixed before being used for 
 irrigation with water from the deep wells. North and east of Corcoran, 
 water from the shallow wells is of Ix^tt'^r (piality. The cost of the 
 shallow wells is usually less than $300. and most of those located south 
 of Corooran corrode and eolla]ise within five years. Yields of from 
 150 to 300 gallons ])er minute are obtained with small deeji well tur- 
 bines driven by 5 ;ind 7.5-horse]iower motors. 
 
 The high cost of repairs ajul short life of the wells and ^nimps is 
 offset to a great extent by the fact that the |uim]is are operated through- 
 out the year, which reduces the cos1 of water materially. For instance, 
 the cost of power for irrigating 3353 acres of wheat and barley in the 
 
ITRMISSIIII.!. IKKMiATH».N i lIAKiil-S 
 
 75 
 
 ^ o c *; ^ ^ 
 
 9 C - 2 3 " 
 
 
 (A 
 
 
 Ui 
 
 ' ^25 
 
 M2 4 
 
 t- 
 
 » W * A J. 
 
 i: 
 
 f 
 
 II 
 
 Is-g-sRss--"-*???! " 
 
 It 
 
 it 
 t 
 
 I 
 
 .■• V 
 
 8 ^ 
 
 S s 
 
 ■ "^"■'"■■iiM, - ■■■■ 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 "^ 1 
 
 '^ 5 
 
 fi 8 
 
 ^ -• 1, p 
 
 lis I 
 
 -. e c » t t 
 
 IPI! 
 
 « ; i 5 5 I 
 
 m ! 
 
 I 
 
 
 a 
 
 !. 
 i 
 
 
76 
 
 DIVISIOX OF ^VATER RESOURCES 
 
 00 
 U 
 
 CO 
 
 < 
 
 O 
 
 H 
 (/3 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 o 
 < 
 
 > 
 
 H H 
 
 trl Z 
 
 < o 
 a. ii 
 
 %<• 
 
 Q w 
 
 ^^ 
 
 o a. 
 
 (/5 Z 
 
 ^K 
 H W 
 
 £ I 
 
 <H 
 
 "Z 
 Z"" 
 O w 
 
 \fi Z 
 
 UJ < 
 
 q: 0. 
 
 UJ S 
 
 ^o 
 5u 
 
 < :* 
 
 aSfes 
 
 < e 
 
 — IMC^^^(MC1^^--^ — — ^' . — — O 
 
 
 = S.g>-; 
 
 ,0O00C000OOC500 oo^'^o 
 
 a 
 
 < 
 
 t'-COiOCiCJiOOOCCCiOOOOCCCitCO^ 
 
 O^— 'O — '-^'-^^^OO'— '^OOOw— o 
 
 
 
 O^'-*«C3Ci»CO»ra0000Q000OOt^00OO 
 
 -oooooo— <o 
 
 OCq^HC<lC*^if50iCOOCOOOOOOOCCC^OO 
 
 O^'-^O'-"-'^ — OO'-'OOOOO^O 
 
 O^.— O^'-'OOOOOCOCOO 
 
 O'<t<c^ic^oo»oo»oooooeoeooc<iooc>joo 
 
 0^"-'C'-«^ — CO-'»— '-^ — — o^o 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 is 
 
 j »-..«'• 05 as CO ► 
 
 
 tU^ >sc:^U-X_>J 
 
I'KKMISSIHI.K IKKUIATION lIIAI{«Jl->< 
 
 77 
 
 CO 
 
 < 
 
 Ik 
 
 8 
 
 a 
 
 < 
 < 
 
 
 a 
 
 U < 'I 
 
 m 
 
 < £ 
 
 < 
 
 > 
 < 
 
 7 
 
 s 
 
 t 
 t 
 
 i 
 I 
 
 c. 
 
 ill , 
 
 ■'- 1 
 
 M 
 \ 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 •8 
 J 
 
 a 
 
 
 iSJi 
 
 % 
 
78 DIVISION OK WATER RESOURCES 
 
 lake bulloiu amounted to $16,05.'], approximately $4.80 per acre and 
 fixed eharfjes, ineludiiip: repairs, broii<iht the total estimated cost up to || 
 $8.10 per acre. The piinipin<i: lift was about 170 feet. 
 
 All farms sliown in Table HO -were located within the Corcoran Irri- 
 gation District. The assessment on lands within the district for the ^jj 
 1929 season was $2.08 an acre and the water supplied by the district f | 
 was delivered for $1.50 an acre for one irrigation, the usual application 
 being 6 acre-inches per acre. It will be noticed that four of the farms 
 listed received district water in 1929, and that onl}- one of them used 
 a substantial amount. 
 
 Gravity Water Costs Under Mutual Water Companies in the Kaweah River 
 Delta. 
 
 The water supply for all of the mutual water companies in the 
 KaAveah River Delta is obtained from the natural flow of the Kaweah 
 River, Avhicli is the largest stream in Tulare Count}'. This river has 
 been used for irrigation since 1854. There now are about 20 ditches 
 diverting from the river, most of them being organized and operated as 
 mutual water companies. At ]\IcKay Point, a short distance below 
 where the river emerges from the mountains, it divides into two main 
 channels known as the Kaweah River and St. Johns River. Both 
 branches further divide into a number of creeks and sloughs spreading 
 over tlie delta. The diversions by the com])anies included in this study 
 are made below ^leKay Point, from either the main branches or from 
 the creeks. 
 
 The diversions are made in accordance with a definite schedule 
 which recognizes- the ])riority of rights. When the stage of the main 
 river above ^IcKay Point falls below 80 cubic-feet per second, the water 
 is all diverted into the Kaweah River branch and is distributed to the 
 following ditches: 
 
 '& 
 
 Consolidated Peoples Ditch 60 per cent 
 
 Evans Ditch 20 per cent 
 
 "Watson Ditch 20 per cent 
 
 When the stage of the river acain reaches 80 cubic-feet per second, 
 or after October 1. tlie flow is divided equally between the Kaweah 
 River and the St. Johns River branches. As the flow of the river 
 increases, other ditches receive water in the following order : 
 
 liongs Canal, Fh'nnning Diteli, Oalo's Ditch. Persian Diteli. Mathews 
 Ditch, .lennings Ditch. jModoc Ditch, Fanners Ditch, and I'phill Ditch. 
 
 Only tlie ditches with the best rights were included in this study 
 because many of the other ditches receive practically no water during 
 years of low runoff. The water supply for all of the ditches is not 
 sutTiciciit to meet the total rer|uirements of the erojis grown. This is 
 j)art icuhirly true during the late summer and fall when the flow of the 
 river is low. Tiie last twelve years, with the exception of 1922 and 
 1!>27. liave been years of less than normal run-off. The run-off for 1924 
 was less than 25 per cent of the m(\iii annual run-off of Kaweah River. 
 The (inly year oi" normal rtm-off foi- which data are included in this 
 re|)ort is 1927. 
 
 During the period from 192-1 to 1929, inclusive, the Consolidated 
 Peoples Ditch received water from 2:54 to ',]Gi^ days each year, or an 
 average of 283 days. The average date of the end of the run was August 
 
l'KliMl>>im.t. lUUllUTlON 1 MAK»it> 
 
 11 ■ 
 
 79 
 
 lljil 
 
 
 2 
 
 < 
 
 s: 
 
 = 5 
 
 s 15 
 
 < 7. 5 
 > 7. 
 
 2? .. 
 
 •8 
 
 I 
 
 a 
 
 9 
 
 1 
 I 
 
 lllll 
 
 111 
 
 In 
 PI 
 
 7. 
 
 •858 
 
 5§ 
 
 ii 
 
 < 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 } 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 3li 
 
 I 
 
 T 
 
 ««« «e *- »r": 
 
 — « —I 
 
 S 8 8 295 
 
 8 
 
 — O n M 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 s r; 
 
 n 8t*s 
 
 s 
 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 t: S53 
 
 » Vr22 
 
 § 
 
 i 
 
 8 5 
 
 8 2 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 a2 
 
 I 3> i. Ill 
 
 9 I 
 
 saa 
 
 I 
 
 1 1 
 I 1 
 
 1 
 i 
 
 i i 
 It. t 
 
 ifii i! It! 
 
 llU 
 
 il 
 
 nil! 
 
 —• - 1 tiiii 
 
 -«e 
 
I 
 
 hi) 
 
 DIVISION OF WATER KESOURCli:S ' 
 
 
 Number 
 
 of 
 plants 
 
 Connected 
 
 load in 
 horsepower 
 
 Energy 
 
 used in 
 
 kilowatt hours 
 
 Estimated' 
 
 Year 
 
 Acre-feet 
 pumped* 
 
 Power 
 cost* 
 
 . . - 
 
 
 1924 ..-.---: — ...- 
 
 193 
 235 
 320 
 357 
 397 
 
 1,951 
 2,373 
 3,449 
 3.835 
 4,471 
 
 2,949,671 
 2.969,626 
 4,496,508 
 3,624.667 
 7,057.890 
 
 33,600 
 32,200 
 47.900 
 39.200 
 72.700 
 
 $47,500 
 
 1925 
 
 52.900 
 
 1926 
 
 1927 . 
 
 77,000 
 71,800 
 
 1928 -- 
 
 107,300 
 
 
 
 26. ]>eeause of tlio seepape loss in the river channel beknv the i)oints 
 of diversion of the Consolidated Peoples Ditch, the remaininjr ditches 
 received water for .much shorter periods, ran<^ing from 36 to 225 days 
 each year. The avCrape .lenpth of run for these ditches was from 99 
 to 167 days, the average date of the end of the runs occurring between ; 
 June 21 and July 12. 
 
 Practically all of the area served by gravity ditches in the Kaweah 
 River Delta receives supplemental water from ^n-ivate pumping plants. 
 Because of the low run-off of the river during the last decade there has 
 been a large increase in the number of plants and amount of power 
 used. There are no data showing the exact number of pumping plants 
 used to supplement gravity sup])lies. but records of the Southern Cali- 
 fornia Edison Comi^any. given in Table 51, .show the following increases 
 during the last five years within the exterior boundaries of the areas 
 served by the mutual water companies included in this study. These 
 figures do not include the Elk Bayou Area, which receives some water 
 from the Con.solidated Peoples Ditch, but depends upon pumping for 
 mo.st of its supply. 
 
 TABLE 51 
 
 EXTENT OF PRIVATE PUMPING ON AREAS SERVED BY SOME OF THE MUTUAL 
 WATER COMPANIES IN THE KAWEAH RIVER DELTA- 
 
 ' Records made available through the courtesy of C. H. Holley. These figures are for full sections within the 
 general areas served by the Consolidated Peoples (exclusive of the Elk Bayou Areal, Evans, Farmers, Flemming. Jen- 
 nings, Matiiews, .Modoc, Oakes, Persian, Uphill and Watson ditches. They are intended to show only the relative amount 
 of pumping and the increa.sc v/ithin the same area in a five-year period. The total area includc<l is 64, 640 acres, of which 
 28,655 acres were actually cropped and irrigated in 1929, according to crop surveys made by the Divbion of Water 
 Kesource.s, State Department of Public Works. 
 
 = Estimated from power companies' records. 
 
 » ila.sed upon available data regarding average depths to the water table, estimating average drawdowns and effi- 
 ciencies, r J J • 
 
 • Based upon relationship between average size of plant and average amount of |)ower used and power rate in 
 accordance with Southern California Edison Company Agricultural Power Schedules P-4 and P-4 Optional. 
 
 Table 51 indicates that there has been an increa.se of more than TOO 
 per cent in su])i)lem('ntal puMi])ing from 1924 to 1928. Partial records 
 for 1929 indicate a material increase over 1928. 
 
 This enormous increase in pumping has resulted in a general lower- 
 ing of the water table of from 5 to 15 feet between 1924 and 1929 over 
 most of the area in the delta receiving gravity water from the above 
 mentioned ditches and a much greatei- lowering on areas not receiv- 
 ing gravity water. Before private pumping was very common, the 
 watet table stood within 5 to 10 feet from the ground surface in many 
 places.- Large areas depended entirely upon subirrigation. In some 
 places trees and vines were irrigated only occasionally by surface 
 application. Alfalfa was sometimes irrigated only once or twice dur- 
 ing a season. Since the lowering of the water table lielow the root zone, 
 these conditions liave changed and the annual siu'face applications have 
 increased. These increased applications are met largely by supple- 
 
PTTRMmsim.T: ittnic VTtov cirAKtJF^; 81 
 
 mental pumpinp, which partially nccouiits for the tromcntlous iiuTcase 
 ill puinpinjr (luring the past six years. 
 
 What liata are availahle indicati* a relatively low duty of water in 
 the Kawoah River Delta Most of the soils are sandy loams and tine 
 siuidy loams. Diversion records and pumping records indicate a net 
 iluty often in excess of fciur acre feet per acre on areas mostly in alfalfa, 
 deciduous fruits and vines. 
 
 The lowerinp of the water table also has had a noticeable effect upon 
 seepajre from the ditches and natural channels used for the distribution 
 of irravity water. In some of the creeks that formerly acted as drniiiiifje 
 ihannels for the delta, the seepage los.ses at present arc so j^reat that 
 t;ravity water .seldom reaches tlie u.sers on the lower end. This is par- 
 ticularly true of Outside Creek, one of the natural channels used to 
 «li- ' •• water from the ('onNolidat<'d Peoples Ditch. Althoti^rh a con- 
 
 sii; amount of water was turned in at the head, practically no water 
 
 was received by the users in the Klk Hayou area, either in 1M2S or 1929. 
 
 Another important factor in the cost of water is the type of service 
 rendered. With the exception of the Ponsolidatcd Peoples Ditcli. the 
 companies included in this study deliver water to the head of small 
 private ditches, usually to individual farms. In most ca.scs the water 
 is delivered on a rotation basis, the lenpth of run to each person 
 ilependinp ujion number of shares of stock owned. The stock is not 
 appurtenant to th»> land. and. because of a larpe number of exchanges 
 of stock Ix'twcen individuals, the ratios between number of .sliares 
 owned and the area irrigated by different individuals varies widely, 
 and at present, on most of the ditches, it is very diflicidt to «letcrmine 
 the usual number f)f acres per share. Since supplem«'ntal pumjiing has 
 become general, some of the original stockholders have s(»ld all tlu'ir 
 stock in the ditch companies and d«'pend entirely upon pumping 
 plant.s. This was sometimes formerly done where a general high water 
 table existed and no surface applications were made. 
 
 The ('on.v>lidated Pe<»ples Ditch delivers water only to the liead of 
 independent laterals. Some of these laterals are small and practically 
 the entire cost to the irriirator is represented by the assevsments and 
 interest on the value of the sto<"k of the Consolidated Peoples Ditch 
 Company. In other cases it al.so is neccKsary for the irrigator to own 
 stock and pay additional a.ssi>*iHmenls in )>oth main lateral and sub- 
 lateral ditch companies before he can obtain water. Tlu' c«)sls on the 
 lower end of the system an-. theref«>re, generally higher tlian on the 
 upper end. T!u'>.' difTereiices for some of the more important, or 
 organize*!, laterals distributing water under the Con.Holidated P«H>ples 
 Ditch are shown in Table 53. Lati-ral ditch compani«'s diverting from 
 Outside Creek were not includcil becnu.He of the uncertainty of their 
 water supply. 
 
 An item reprej«»nting a considcralde portion of the co«t of water to 
 all of the companii*^ considcreil ih li* Sinci- 1916. mont of 
 
 tl > diverting fr ■ '•' ' ' • ' -n engaged in 
 
 lr._.. the Lindsay ' t. 
 
 A .summary of data p'ganlinir onranization, value of capital stock, 
 principal crops grown, a.s^ per acre, interest on capital 
 
 stock, and ate aNci. -.f water per acre, is f^iven in 
 
 Table?* .'>2. ..:. - 1. 
 
82 
 
 DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES 
 
 O 
 
 U) 
 
 
 PL,-^ 
 
 <a 
 
 o 10 s =« " 
 
 is 
 
 a-a 
 
 > S 3 
 
 
 s a £ 
 b p 93 
 
 O 
 
 -t3 
 
 •a 
 
 ^J2 c 
 
 ^3 
 
 2£ si 
 
 00 o > 
 
 '^ Or 
 
 ■ c c c3 q « 
 
 ^•-ri I- I- C3 o-^ 
 
 " > M MS: « > 
 
 a c 
 
 a 
 ■> 
 
 P a 
 
 ?: a fc 
 
 _ O fc, o 
 
 C5 o O o O W 
 
 >* . - a . c 
 ^ WJ wj o w o 
 
 t- C3 fl -^ B -^ 
 O-r-'C 0-- O 
 t) > > t> C» « 
 
 > 3 
 
 *— **-• *». 
 
 O T3 
 
 g a 
 
 §33 
 000 
 
 3 3 3 
 
 "2 "2 "2 
 
 a> a; 0^ 
 
 ^»33 
 
 n 3-2T3 
 
 eo S a> OJ 
 3 0-0 73 
 
 ^ - " =« 
 ■5 £ « « 
 
 3 3>H 
 oi; 
 
 3 3S3 
 'S'w - 
 
 333 
 000 
 
 a n 3 
 «*-**- -o 
 
 
 000000 CJiCO 
 U^OO'—OO M o 
 
 >o«oo« 
 
 MOOOCSOfMC^OSOOOO-^CCOiO 
 (Mt^CCO — OiCiOOCOOCCI^OOO 
 
 05 ^H 
 
 ^ r^ -^ 
 
 00 00 00 
 
 03 00 00 
 
 S S all S.illjI.i.Si.i 
 
 if- 
 
 CJ 
 
 a 
 
 
 W C«. -> *S »4 O &. 
 
 . e 
 
 3 
 
 C 
 
 eg 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 el 
 
 li 
 
 .2 o » 
 
 SI'S 
 
 o c 
 
 2 c 2 
 •c o 5 
 c a.z . 
 £ ='_^-g 
 
 « g2Q 
 
 J2 3J3 4> 
 
 c 
 
 ȣ-S 
 
 
 1- C3;3 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 « " 
 
 e 
 
 S JO 
 
 ;3 
 
 0-— 4> 
 
 -a Is •'3 
 
 
 •0 S^a 
 
 ■c 
 
 a 
 
 <uS2 
 
 c 
 
 valu 
 edco 
 aterf 
 
 R 
 
 >S* 
 
 
 
 s:^ u 
 
 to present c 
 give a rela 
 
 en are cons 
 dutributin 
 
 
 
 
 does 
 gures 
 Iditc 
 
 E 
 
 
 4,>C1 E 
 
 
 
 ■i 
 
 5f23 
 
 ■3 
 
 ■£ • 
 
 
 be mark 
 own, etc 
 depende 
 
 >-H feJS 
 
 " 
 
 " 8," 
 
 
 
 
 b 
 
t 
 
 w 
 
 MM . 
 
 ^!: ■ 
 
 ?^ 
 
 <x 'I 
 
 PSRMIS.SIIU.K lltKIOATlON rilAKOtS 
 
 83 
 
 111 
 
 
 «1-9«"S ' — rr r rr — ooooooo — 
 
 f 
 
 <^ — o — — oxonxoooo-* 
 
 ^ I § 
 
 •A 
 
 a 
 
 < 
 
 1 
 
 'J iU < 
 
 zp ' 
 
 ^Z I 
 
 2 35 i 
 
 2|i 
 
 ia 
 23 
 
 t < 
 
 a* 
 
 
 I S8SSS38S8::8Sgr^ 
 
 JJ I OO O — — — -1 o ri-".«0"-0 — 
 
 I 2 
 
 i03— C— 3— — cc—o 
 
 ^8= : 
 
 - o— . 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 4ri- 
 
 lHjf3-l 
 
 1 
 
 s 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 t 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 ll 
 
 uh 
 
 m 
 
84 
 
 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 in 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 O^O—^OOOi-iO-H 
 
 oooooooooo 
 
 
 cce*«cooc«t^500»ogo 
 o^ooooooo— 
 
 — C^00i-<OO<-'C^-H 
 
 oooooooooo I 
 
 oooooooooo 
 
 S3 ^ 
 
 w 
 
 ooo— -oooooo 
 
 oooooooooo 
 
 oooooooooo 
 
 00''^>COCCI^OOO^« 
 OOOOOOOOOO 
 
 0«-<CO'^000»-'0 
 
 a 
 8 
 
 -s 
 
 QE 
 
 .►.rf «— '»- JS-"^!^>• 
 
 5wcE:^3■^^oo^& 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 8^2 
 
PCRMISRIBLF. IRRir.ATION CIIAROnB 
 
 86 
 
 Coat of Water to IrrigAtort Supplied Excluaivaly by Farm Pumpmo Plants. 
 KawcaH Delta, and Tula River- Daar Creak Araaa, Exceptino Foothill 
 Citrus Belt. 
 
 The cost of irri(?ation water supplip<l exrlusivcly by farm pumping 
 plants serving ten farms in Kawoah Drita Area and seven in the Tiile 
 Itiver-Deer Creek area is shown in Tables 5') and r)G. It will be notice<l 
 that costs on the seven farms in the Tule Kiver-Deer Creek area vary 
 iH'twten $t) an<l $12.40 an acre, wliile those in the Kaweah Delta area 
 ranj:e from $0.60 to $23.60 an acre. 
 
 This ditTerenee between the ranjje in costs m the two ^roui)s cjin not 
 Ih' taken as an indication that the usual cost of water supplied by farm 
 pumpinp i)lants in the Tule Kiver-Deer Creek area is less than the 
 usual cost in the Kaweah Delta area, because it is obvious the number of 
 pumping plants included in each proup is a small part of the total 
 number in operation. However, as examples of the co.st of water to 
 certain irrigators, tlie reportetl costs fulfill the purpose for which they 
 were obtained. 
 
 Cost of Pumping With Deep-well Turbines. 
 
 As explained on pajre 20. ilata on the cost of water to irrigators using 
 farm pumping plants was obtained for a small number of farms, forty- 
 four to be exact, of the thou.sands using such plants in Tulare. Kings, 
 and Kern counties. In selecting these samples an attempt was made 
 to include representative farms in each of the above counties. How- 
 plate VI 
 
 ttc r 
 
 its 
 
 >»0 
 
 I 
 
 40 
 
 )0C 
 
 M 
 
 JO 
 
 • T ( « 
 
 Op«r«tirg txne m lOOO bourt 
 
 4 1 i IS 
 
 ) >^ lk<<r »M 
 
 CO<=-^ ^^ PUMPING. NOT INCLUDING CHAROKS ON WELL WITH DEEP- 
 vrLL Tl'RBINF.. CAPACITY *^0 GALLONS PER MINUTE 
 
86 
 
 DIVISION or WATER RESOURCES 
 
 U5 
 
 >n 
 
 U 
 
 CO 
 
 < 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 1 
 
 — o lo o o o « o w ira 
 
 _!. *» 
 
 .1 i i 
 
 g-3| 
 
 CO OO lO 
 
 a^"r 
 
 
 -< a 
 
 
 Total 
 Dnnected 
 load in 
 horse- 
 power 
 
 ^ ^ .^ ^ ^ »/3 e^j »c — « o'l 
 
 
 « 1 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ^ ^ „ ^ ^ ^ ^ ro •-< ic 
 
 £ K 
 
 
 pUM q 
 
 
 
 
 /5 '=^ 
 
 
 
 |t5 8 
 
 ■^ -^ iM op ** t* "* oa t* b- 
 t^ t- 1^ ^ d> c^ •« (O <- «o 
 
 
 
 
 c ■« 
 
 
 
 1-^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 5" 
 
 "Si 
 
 oor^O'«iccc^Tr'^--o o 
 
 a ^ 
 
 •2 2 
 
 C5 O C 
 
 S £.2 
 
 -^ -M (N .-• ^ »-< ^ ^ C^ ^H 
 
 
 CiMor^osco»ftccoo 1^ 
 
 •"* o 
 
 t^ c^ t^ lO cc o r* OS r^ o 
 
 ■« " 
 
 
 o^o»-<^oooc^ o 
 
 c. 
 
 <y» 
 
 ■ *s 
 
 a 
 
 ■4J rt --1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ « (D CO OO OO CD »0 O O 
 
 
 1 
 
 t^-^ OlOC^J O^COOSO <M 
 
 
 CO iO O 03 I--) t« 03 O) C4 CO 
 
 
 o 
 
 «» ^H i-H 
 
 
 (S 
 
 
 ^ o 2 a; 
 
 OOOOOOOQO O 
 
 ml 
 
 -- f-. O lO ^ '^ "«f »C CC OS 
 
 O g fc S. 
 
 
 
 
 : i i i i i i ; io i 
 
 
 
 1 I 1 ' ' 1 1 ' |°0 1 
 
 
 
 i 1^ ; I ; i is? ; 
 
 
 
 
 -o 
 
 
 life, -■« , , ,o 1 
 o £ o f: od . 
 
 irrigate 
 
 s. 
 
 2 
 
 u 
 
 £ 
 
 
 alii f -2 i=S ;.- i 
 
 
 'aM..sao«» .- 00' 
 
 -o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C<'Pu(x,<:-t;-rto<o 
 
 
 ooior^iocooo'^QOoo 
 
 
 — = m 
 
 CO'ft^CCCCOl^WJ^O 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 I 1 t 1 1 1 • I 1 
 
 J| i^ ii ii i| 
 
 
 a 
 
 la :- 8 la St: 
 
 o 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^c^co»C-^c*t^ocoao 
 
 b 
 
 
 g 
 
 *^c4co^iocor«ao9>o 
 
 .a 
 
 r-t 
 
 S 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 y. 
 
 
 
 >. 
 
 g 
 
 -n 
 o 
 
 "(5 
 pa 
 
PKRMISSinLK IRKir.ATION rilARfiKS 
 
 87 
 
 sis! 
 
 a.ea 
 
 si u 
 
 > 
 
 ii 
 
 d 
 
 *- -• 
 
 sS 
 
 e 
 
 > 
 a 
 
 S 
 
 09 8 
 
 SI 
 
 < 
 
 1 
 
 ill 
 
 J nil 
 
 SS S 3RS9 
 
 9g 2 -;sa2 
 
 |TJfi 
 
 y. - 
 
 1 
 
 |i|l = 
 
 3:2 :;; 
 
 > Mr* O 
 
 
 |5i 
 i 
 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 II? 
 
 i 
 
 JO - 
 
 ■ o o o 
 
 3S s 8t;;e 
 
 S3 S £888 
 
 li -- 
 
 n I if 
 
 -". '■■9 
 
 :9 
 
 i 
 
 5 :l 
 
 . I- =! 5 
 
 aa a *5J2 
 
 iji i lit 
 
 til 1 ill 
 
88 
 
 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 PLATE VII 
 
 300 
 
 250 
 
 c 200 
 
 
 ISO 
 
 100 
 
 SO 
 
 Twelve Inch, double . stove-pipe casing 
 (Estimated life ZOyears) 
 
 Depth Casing Total 
 
 4 6 8 10 12 
 
 Annual charges on wells in dollars per acre-foot 
 
 Annual 
 
 feet 
 
 gauge 
 
 cost 
 
 charge 
 
 ISO 
 
 14 
 
 $675 
 
 $70 
 
 200 
 
 14 
 
 890 
 
 92 
 
 2 50 
 
 14 
 
 1 120 
 
 116 
 
 300 
 
 12 
 
 1560 
 
 162 
 
 400 
 
 12 
 
 2085 
 
 216 
 
 500 
 
 12 
 
 2 640 
 
 2 74 
 
 14 
 
 ANNUAL CHARGES ON TWELVE-INCH STOVE-PIPE WELLS. 
 
 ever, since, as anticipated, variation in pumpinj; lift, crop requirement, 
 installed plant capacity per acre, hours of plant operation per annum, 
 etc., was great, no attempt was made to compare the cost of water 
 in one area with that in another. 
 
 In order to show the effect of the pumping lift and the duration 
 of operation on the cost of pumping per acre-foot with a deep well 
 turbine delivering one cubic foot per second (450 gallons per minute) 
 Plate VI has been prepared. The total annual cost of pumping includes 
 interest at 6 per cent, taxes at 1 per cent, and depreciation at 5 per 
 cent on the cost of the deep-well turbine, starting equipment, and 
 housing. Prices which prevailed in the first six months of 1930 were 
 used in computing the capital cost. The annual allowance to cover 
 repairs and lubrication is indicated on the diagram. Power charges 
 were made according to the P-2 schedule of the San Joaquin Light and 
 Powor Cor])oration. 
 
 The total annual cost of puinjjing, including the above items but not 
 the annual charges on the well, was comjiuted for operation periods of 
 1000 hours per annum and up, the greatest being for SOOO of the 8760 
 honi-s whif'h make up the usual ealcndar y(>ar. 
 
 The slanting, discontinuous lines on IMatc VI show the estimated 
 j)umping costs per acre-foot for pnin]nng lifts of from 20 to 240 feet for 
 the indicated hours of operation. Discontinuity results from the neces- 
 sity of increasing the si/c of motor, pump head, and starting equipment 
 .'it intervals ;is tlio lift incrcnscs. ^Totor sizes are shown to the right of 
 
I'KKMISSIIU.K IKKICATION ('IIAKill-3% 89 
 
 the 1000-ho»ir liiii- A I'mw m »."• -•ii"«min i" t iinrnii.- for 1(U)() hours 
 IS fvpuvaK'nt to S'J >(') a«Ti* fi'«»t. 
 
 It is intorostinp to noti- that if iUv pumpinfr I'limt is oporatjvl 10(K) 
 hours por niiiitini. \vat«r ran bo lifted alwiut 70 f«'t»t for appntximat«^ly 
 •*•'» per aorefoot, hut if the op«*rafion tijiie is iiH'reased to :{(M)() hojirs 
 .•lK>iit the s.itne cost per aere ftnit «'aii lie iiiaintaiiied with a lift of 160 
 fe^t. Furthermore, if the pumping' lift remains at 70 feet, an inerwise 
 in the annual operation time from 1000 to .'{(MK) hours will result in a 
 ,|, — in the estimate«l eost »»f pumpiiiir (not ineluilinj; an annual 
 
 »■! _ ;or use of the Nxelh of fnuu $.'» to $'J..'>0 pi-r acrt* f"«tt. 
 
 Dia^rrams similar to IMate VI ean he prepared for <Ieep-\vell turbine 
 plants of preater capaeity. I'nder normal eonditions the unit eost of 
 punutiritr d^M'teasi's as the eapneity of the plant increases. 
 
 riate \'1I sliows the annual eharire per aere-foot of water pumped 
 from 12-ineh stove-pipe wells of from 150 to fiOO feet in tb'pth. The 
 total costs set forth on the dia(;ram inelude drillinp. easing?, and per- 
 fnratinir. The noimal life of a w«'ll was tak»ii at 20 years. '\.'M\ per 
 ••ent of the eost beinp set aside annually to provide for n'plaeement 
 from a sinkinj? fund earninjr 4 per eent per annum. Interest was 
 (harped at therate of fi per cent ami an additional 1 per cent was 
 allowed for taxes. 
 
 By eombininp costs piven in both diairrams. an estimate of the total 
 • ost of pumpinp with a deep well turbin(> of 450 pallons per minute 
 '•apacity may be obtaineil. For instance, avsum.inp a lift of 150 feet, an 
 ofieratinp period of 2000 hours, and a well depth of 400 feet: 
 
 Vohnne of water pumped"" ' 166 aere-feet. 
 
 From Plate VI. cost of luimpii.;: pi aiTe-foot, not ineludinp 
 
 ••harpes on well . —$6.00 
 
 From PIat»« VII. annual r'harpe on well per acre-foot ■— 1.30 
 
 Total estiinai«'4i cost of pumpinp per aere imii ajiproxi 
 
 n,!.f..tr — .*7 ^n 
 
PUBLICATIONS 
 
 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
I 
 
 PUBLICATIONS OF THE 
 
 , DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 
 
 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 Wh«n the Department of Public Works naa created In July. 1921, the State Water Commlsdon wai luceoeded 
 by th» niTlilon of Water Rights, and the Uopartment of Engineering was succeeded by the Dlrlilon of 
 Engineering and Irrigation In all duties except those pertaining to State Architect. Both the Dirislon of 
 Water Rights and the Dlrlslon of Engineering and Irrigation functioned until August, 1939. when they were 
 consolidated to form the Division of Water Resources. 
 
 STATE WATER COMMISSION 
 First Report, State Water Commission, March 24 to November 1, 1912. 
 Second Report, State Water Commission, November 1, 1912, to April 1, 1914. 
 •Biennial Report, State Water Commission, March 1, 1915, to December 1, 1916. 
 Biennial Report, State Water Commission, December 1, 1916, to September 1, 1918. 
 Biennial Report, State Water Commission, September 1, 1918, to September 1, 1920. 
 
 DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS 
 •Bulletin No. 1 — Hydrographic Investigation of San Joaquin River, 1920-1923. 
 •Bulletin No. 2 — Kings River Investigation, Water Master's Reports, 1918-1923. 
 •Bulletin No. 3 — Proceedings First Sacramento-San Joaquin River Problems Con- 
 ference, 1924. 
 •Bulletin No. 4 — Proceedings Second Sacramento-San Joaquin River Problems Con- 
 ference, and Water Supervisor's Report, 1924. 
 Bulletin No. 5 — San Gabriel Investigation — Basic Data, 1923-1926. 
 Bulletin No. 6 — San Gabriel Investigation — Basic Data, 1926-1928. 
 Bulletin No. 7 — San Gabriel Investigation — Analysis and Conclusions, 1929. 
 •Biennial Report, Division of Water Rights, 1920-1922. 
 •Biennial Report, Division of Water Rights, 1922-1924. 
 Biennial Report, Division of Water Rights, 1924-1926. 
 Biennial Report, Division of Water Rights. 1926-1928. 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING 
 
 •Bulletin No. 1 — Cooperative Irrigation Investigations in California, 1912-1914. 
 
 •Bulletin No. 2 — Irrigation Districts in California, 1887-1915. 
 Bulletin No. 3 — Investigations of Economic Duty of Water for Alfalfa In Sacra- 
 mento Valley, California, 1915. 
 
 •Bulletin No. 4 — I'reliminary Report on Conservation and Control of Flood Waters 
 in Coachella Valley, California, 1917. 
 
 •Bulletin No. 5 — Report on the Utilization of Mojave River for Irrigation in 
 Victor Valley, California, 1918. 
 
 •Bulletin No. 6 — California Irrigation District Laws, 1919 (now obsolete). j 
 
 Bulletin No. 7 — Use of water from Kinp, River, California, 1918. * 
 
 •Bulletin No. 8 — Flood Problems of the Calaveras River, 1919. 
 
 Bulletin No. 9 — Water Resources of Kern River and Adjacent Streams and Their 
 Utilization, 1920. 
 
 •Biennial Report. Department of Kngineering, 1907-1908. 
 
 •Biennial Report, Department of Knglneerlnp. 1908-1910. 
 
 •Biennial Report, Department of Kngineering, 1910-1912. 
 
 •Biennial lU>port, Deiiartment of Engineering, 1912-1914. 
 
 •Biennial Riport, Department of Engineering, 1914-1916. 
 
 •Biennial Report, Department of Engineering. 1916-1918. 
 
 •Biennial Report, Department of Engineering, 1918-1920. 
 
 • Reports and Bulletins out of print. These mny be liorrciwed by your local library from the California 
 .Stale I.llirary at Sirramenlo. ('illfornla 
 
DIVISION OF WATER RCSOURCCS 
 Including Report* of tht Former Division of Englnsering and Irrigation 
 •Bullrtin No. 1 — California Irrlirutinn ni"lrl«-t |j«w-. 1921 < now nhn<)l«to>. 
 •Bulletin No. 2— 1., etc.. 1»2I. 
 
 RuUetln No. 3 — •• ^ .^ ^ iMllon. IISI 
 
 Bulletin No. 4 — ^Water I<«aourcea of CalUornlK. 1»}3 
 Bulletin No. S — now In Cn" . • ' "- 
 
 Bul>tln No. 6 — IrrlCHiU.n ! : nU Lamia, 1923. 
 
 •Hu;:.tin No. 7- -l i...-»w«. 1923 (now ubaul«t«). 
 
 •Bulletin No. »— ' ,. - a In California. 1935. 
 
 Bullrtin No. 9— SupplemenUl Report on Water Reeoureea of California. 1926. 
 •r.ult.tln No. 10- Callfornl.i Irrik-atl.-n 1 ■ * * (now 
 
 UulU>tln No. 11 — Ground Water K.'.>fc'urci Ii>ttqu4n . :J.. 
 
 Bulletin No. 12 — Summary lUiiort on thn Water ••!! of California and a 
 
 CoorJlnated Plan for Their IX . ...... iit, 1927. 
 
 Bulletin No. 13 — The Development of the Upper Sacramento River, coDtalnln( U. 8 
 
 R. S. (?ooperatlve !:■ . Iron Canyon Project, 1927. 
 
 Bulletin No. M — The Control of KIn...U rvt.lrs. 1928. 
 
 •HuUetln No. 18 — ' I. as. 1927 (now obaolete). 
 
 HulUtln No. 18-' •_ I..IW.S. 1929 Rovlalon. 
 
 Bulletin No. 19 — Santa Ana Investigation. Flood Control and Conservation (with 
 
 packet <•' ■ ' 
 
 Bulletin No. 20 — Kvnnett R. imwnt. an Analysis of Methods and 
 
 Extent of r'ltianeing t Power Revenue, 1929. 
 
 •Bulletin No. 21 — Irrlpitlon Districts In Cal.: ..j. 
 
 Bulletin No. 21-A — Report on Irrigation Districts In California for the Yrar 
 
 1929, 1930. 
 Bulletin No. 22 — Report on <<\\f Wti!«>r B.irrlor (two volumes). 1929. 
 Bulletin No. 23 — Re; Supervisor, 1924-1928. 
 
 HuK'iln No. 24 — A i ... . . .can Hlvcr. 192'.>. 
 
 !ti::.tin No. 18-A — P l Survey of Ui o.. Bay Area. 1930. 
 
 Pi;;;. tin No. 31- 
 
 Hui:<tln No. 32 — .tU'e Symposium. 1930. 
 
 Bulletin No. 34 — Fcr; .irges for Irrigation Water In Upper San 
 
 J.- 
 
 Biennial Report. Divlalon of and Irrigation, 1920-1111. 
 
 :«l Report. T ' ! • 1922-1934. 
 
 M Report. : 1924-1926. 
 
 COOPERATIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS 
 
 •Report of the Conservation Commission ». 1912. 
 
 •Irrigation Resources of California and nation (Bui. tB4. Offlc* of Gip. 
 
 IT. 8. D. A.) 1913 
 •Report. State Water F'ro) ' •■. Nu%cmb«>r 28. 1918 
 
 •Report on Pit River lias 
 
 •Report on Lower Pit Rp. ' ct. July. 1915. 
 
 •Report on Iron C^anyon 1 . ,' . ">'< 
 •Report on Iron Canyon Project. ;«. May. 1920. 
 
 P.- ^ Leading to the Failure of 
 
 Report (if ■ 1 Aaitcmblx Dealing With thn Wa(«r 
 
 1929. 
 
 PAMPHLETS 
 Ru>* '.tllfornla. 1919. 
 
 Water • - 
 
 Rules and Regula; :ng the t Water In QUIfomla. 1919 
 
 Rules and ReguU' ' Rights to Use of Water Ir. 
 
 Accor'1»r>'-«» • 
 Tables of 
 (General P.* ^i* ana Nine Inch Parsbail 
 
 Measuring Humea 1930. 
 
 iu»<«t4 tad ; > I. T^M* ma t» i i «ii w< fer »«« tnsi MMsr? trim um CkUr«r«u 
 
 Lltr«rT •". - 
 
 80999 lS-30 iU. O 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 -34 
 DEC 1 
 
 ^l^'V- 
 
 DOC. DELIV. 
 
 INTER 
 DUE, 
 
 'h^i 
 
 5AN 
 
 '"Ce 2 6 19S0 
 RECEIVED 
 
 PHY SCI LIBRARY 
 
 NOV 12 
 
 NOV 8 leAo' 
 R-E-CEWcD 
 
 SCI UBRABV! 
 
 ;CEIPT 
 
 PHYS SCI UBRARY 
 
 Book Slip-25m-7,'53(A8998s4)468 
 
1115P3 
 
 Calif. Division of 
 water r* -cos. 
 
 TC62I4 
 C2 
 
 
 — d 
 
 tiURART 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CAUFOEOA 
 PAVI3 
 
 111598 
 
 '75 OC 
 
. 
 
 If 
 
 •1 
 s