f/v m ,L-6 Vl4 A PORTION OF SOUTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA SHOWING CITRUS AREAS COVERED IN STUDY OF THE VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION SCALE OF MILES 10 10 20 30 40 NUMBERS INDICATE CITRUS AREAS STUDIED V - of agricultural lands 109 Agricultural lands in a portion of Vontura County 109 Description of local areas__ HI Summary of agricultural lands 112 Chapter VII rONSIDIOItATK^NS WHICH GOVERN EXPENi~HTURES FOR IRRIGATION WATin: IX THE COASTAL I'LAIN OF SOUTHERN CALI- FORNIA — I-'arm costs and income in relation to the value of water for irrigation in the l)rodnction of walnuts aiid citrus fruits : 114 Physical iliiTi rcnces affecting costs, j-ichls, and lu-t incomes 115 Typrs of faiinlng and size of holdings in relation to the value of water__ 116 Taxes in relation to tlie value of water 118 Interpretation of differences in costs of production and yields 119 Residual farm incoini' in relation to the \aUie of water for iiTigation 123 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CONSIDKRATIONS WHICH GOVKHN EXPIONDITURIOS KOR IRRIGATION' WATER IN THE COASTAL PLAIN OK SOUTHERN CALI- FORNIA — Continued liesidual income "available" for water with assumed laud values 125 Conclusions regarding the relation of residual income from citrus fruits and waliuits to cliarges for irrigation water 128 Value of water for deciduous fruits, grapes, field crops, and truck crops ISO A''aluo of water for undeveloped land 132 Appendix Lt)CAL AREAS IN PUE COASTAL I'LAIN OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COVERED IN STUDY OF VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION FOR CITRUS FRUITS— Orange areas 147 Lemon areas 152 TABLE A. ORANGES — Averages of individual costs of production, yields, and returns to growers per acre 154 TA-BLE A-1 — Average yields and returns per acre for oranges, Ventura County 170 TABLE B. LEMONS — Averages of individual costs of production, yields, and returns to growers per acre 172 TABLE B-1 — Average yields and returns per acre for lemons, Ventura County 178 TABLE C. GRAPEFRUIT — Averages of individual costs of production und yields per acre 179 TABLE D. WALNUTS — Averages of individual costs of production, yields, and returns to growers per acre 180 TABLE E — Average annual costs per acre of bringing an orange grove into bearing 183 TABLE F — Index numbers, and prices paid per unit for labor and material by citrus growers, during the period 1927 to 1932 184 I'UBLICATIONS OF THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 185 LIST OF PLATES Plate Page A portion of southwestern California, showing citrus areas covered in study of the value and cost of water for irrigation Frontispiece I Cumulative percentage curves of yields of oranges as reported by 4 4 cost- of-production records from orange area 11, 22 similar records from the San Dimas-La Verne district in the same area, and by 184 packing- house records, also from area 11 39 II I'umulative frequency curves of the post of irrigation water to growers of lemons and oranges in the coastal plain of southern California as shown by cost-of-production records from the California Citrus i^eague and the Agricultural Extension Service of the University of California 86 A Map of area covered by South Coastal Basin investigations of tlie Division of Water Resources showing the distribution of irrigated crops grown In 1932 In pocket I! Mail of area covered by Ventura County investigatiy specified areas, for the various items of labor and materials used in the production of oranges and lemons as shown by SI Agricultural Extension Service records 44 11 Frequency distribution of annual costs of producing oranges, including depre- ciation on equipment and trees but not including costs of harvesting, packing, marketing, or for water, adjusted to assumed lower price levels for labor and materials and assumed lower taxes 47 12 Frequency distribution of annual costs of producing lemons, including depreciation on equipment ajid trees but not including costs of harvest- ing, packing, marketing, or for water, adjusted to assumed lower price levels for labor and materials and assumed lower taxes 48 13 P'requency distribution of annual costs of production and yields of grapefruit 49 14 Frequency distribution of yields of oranges, by specified areas 50 15 Frequency distribution of yields of lemons, by specified areas 51 16 Average f.o.b. prices per packed box received by the California Fruit fJrowers' Exchange for fruit shipped during the season 52 17 Frequency distribution of returns from oranges per acre by areas with f.o.b. prices ranging from $1.50 to ?3 per packed box bettccen papes 52-53 IS Computed annual income per acre from oranges, after allowing for depreci- ation and paying all costs of production, harvesting, and packing, except the cost of water, with f.o.b. prices of $1.50 to $3 per packed box 55 19 Computed annual income per acre from lemons, after allowing for depreci- ation and paying all costs of production, harvesting, and packing, except the cost of water, with f.o.b. prices of $2 to $4 per packed box__ 56 20 Estimated acreage of avocados in seven southern coastal-plain counties of California 58 21 Average annual costs of production, yields, and income, per acre, avocados, 1930-1932 59 22 ^Valnut acreage in southern California coastal plain, 1932 61 23 "U'alnut acreage and production in California, 1914—1932 62 2 4 Average prices received by local a.ssociations for Diamond Xo. ] soft shell walnuts (seedlings), together with index figures for walnuts, for all commodities wholesale pricfs. and for all farm products, 1919-1932 64 25 Average yields per acre and average percentage of walnuts in the various market grades as shown by packing-house records 64 26 Average annual costs of production and yields of walnuts, per acre, by specified areas 66 (7) b LIST OF TABLES Table Page 27 Average amuunts paid annually per acre by growers, by specilied areas, for the various items of labor and materials used in the production of walnuts as shown by 84 Agricultural Extension Service records 67 2S Fretiuency distribution of yields of walnuts, by specititd areas 6S 2» Frequency distribution of residual income from walnuts above costs of production other than the cost of water. Production costs were com- puted on a lit27— 1921" cost basis, while returns to grower were figured at 20 cents a pound . 6H 30 Frequency distribution of residual income from walnuts above costs of production other than the cost of water with average prices for wal- mits of IS, 16. 14 and 12 cents a pound to the grower. Costs of production 25 per cent less than the average for Ht27-iy2y 70 30A Computed annual income pei- acre from walnuts after allowing for depreci- ation and paying all costs of production and harvesting, except the cost of water, with average price for all grades of marketable walnuts 18, 16, 14, and 12 cents per pound net to the growers 71 31 Average annual costs of production, yields, and total returns to the grower per acre for lima beans, Orange County 7G 32 Average annual costs of production, yields, and total returns to the grower per acre for lo apricot orchards in Riverside County 77 33 Annual costs of production, yields, and returns per acre for 29 lima bean growers in Ventura County, 1929 78 34 Average annual yields, sugar content, and gross returns per acre from sugar beets in several districts in San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties during the period 1930—1932, as shown by a composite record of a number of farms 81 35 Frequency distribution of average annual costs of irrigation water per acre to orange growers in the coastal plain of southern California, 1926— 1931, as showni by 652 California Citrus League and Agricultural Extension Service records of costs of production S4 36 Frequency distribution of average annual costs of irrigation water per acre to lemon growers in the coastal plain of southern California, 19 26— 1931, as shown by 247 California Citrus League and Agricultural Extension Service records of costs of production 85 37 Average annual costs of irrigation water under 8 public utilities in the southern California coastal plain, under 1932 rates S7 38 Average annual costs of irrigation water under 36 mutual water companies iii the southern California coastal plain, 1932 88 39. Average annual costs of irrigation water under 11 irrigation districts in the southern California coastal plain, 1931 90 39A Total annual cost of producing and distributing water under seven mutual water companies in southern California segregated by major items of expense 92 40 Average depths of water applied, average costs of water jH-r acre and acre- foot, and average vields of 45 orange orchards and 12 lemon orchards in Orange County, 1927 to 1932 94 41 Average depths of water applied and average costs of water per acre and per acre-foot for 17 avocado orchards in Orange County. 1930 to 1932__ 96 42 Average depths of water applied and average costs of water per acre and per acre-foot for 41 walnut orchards in areas "W-l and W-2, 1929 to 1932 97 43 Average depths of water applied and average costs of water per acre and I>er acre-foot for 45 lima bean fields, Somis, Ventura County. 1928 to 1931 98 4 4 Mean net irrigation requirements for citrus fruits in the coastal, inter- mediate, and interior climatic zones of the southern California coastal plain 99 45 Irrigated acreage in South Coastal Basin and that part of Vetitiira County included within Santa Clar;i River valley and the valleys and plains lands lying to the south and west, together with a record of acreage in crop in San Diego County, 1932 102 46 Summary of lands in the western half of San Diego County and in part of Orange County falling within grades 1, 2. and 3, as outlined in University of California Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin r)52 103 47 Estimated acreage of irrigated land in .^an Diego County 104 4S Acreages of unirrigated valley lands, by drainage basins and by counties, as shown by the crop survey ttf the South Coastal Basin by the Division I'f Water Resources, together with an estimate of the net irrigable acreages remaining after deducting the large blocks of lands considered nonagriciiltural 110 LIST OF TABLES 3 Tal)le Page 411 Acreages t>r valley and plains lands and of irrigated lands, by draiiiag*- basins, as shown by Ihe crop survey of Ventura County by the Division of Water Resources, together with an estimate of the net irrigable acreages H^ oU Summary of net acreage available for the extension of agriculture in the coastal plain of southern California, with an estimate of the areas "available" for citrus fruits 113 .">! Computed average residual income from orange production "available" for water with other costs of productioi-. adjusted to assumed price levels, witli assumed values for developed orchards, and w'ith f.o.b. prices for urangi's ranging from $1.7.5 to $2.".') a packed box 12G .■)2 Computed average residual income from lemon production "availaljle" for water with other costs of production adjusted to assumed price levels, with assumed values for developed orchards, and with f.o.b. prices for lemons ranging from ?2.r)0 to $^.nO a packed box 127 53 Computed average residual income from walnut production "available" for water with other costs of production adjusted to assumed price levels, with assumed values for developed orchards, and with different net average prices to the growers for walnuts 128 5 4 Minimum, average, and maximum costs of water per acre for oranges reported by growers and residual income above other costs than the cost of water in the orange "areas" of the coastal plain of southern California at specified f.o.b. prices 135 55 Minimum, average, and maximum costs of water per acre for lemons reported by growers and residual income above other costs than the cost of water in the lemon "areas'* of the coastal plain of southern California at specified f.o.b. prices 136 56 Minimum, average, and maximum costs of water per acre for walnuts reported by growers and residual income above other costs than the cost of water in the walnut "areas" of the coastal j)lain of southern California at specified prices per pound for walnuts, net to the growers 137 57 Prices per packed box for oranges and lemons necessary to cover the average cost per acre of production, harvesting, and marketing, plus interest at 6 per cent on the in^■estment in land, and on the average investment in trees, improvements, and equipment, together with a water cost of $10, $20, $30, |40, $50, and $60 per acre per annum 139 58 Prices per packed box for oranges and lemons necessary to cover the cost per acre of production, harvesting, and marketing to the grower of least income above costs in the upper two-thirds group of growers, plus interest at six per cent on the investment in land and on the average investment in trees, improvements, and equipment, together with a water cost of $10, $20, $30, $40, $50, and $60 per acre per annum 110 59 Prices per pound for walnuts necessary to cover the average cost per acre of production and harvesting, plus interest at 6 per cent on the invest- ment in land, and on the average investment in trees, improvements, and equipment, together with a water cost of $5, $10, $15, $20, $25, $30, $35, and $40 i>er acre per annum 1 -n 60 Prices per pound for walnuts necessarj- to cover the cost per acre of pro- duction and harvesting to the gi-ower of least income above costs in the upper two-thirds group of growers, plus interest at 6 per cent on the investment in land and on the a\erage investment in trees, improve- ments, and equipment, together with a water cost of $5, $10, $15, $20, ?3n, $35, and $40 per acre per annum 112 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Mr. Edward Hyatt, State Engineer, Sacramento, California. Dear Sir : There is transmitted herewith a report entitled "Tlu* Value and Cost of Water for Irrigation in the Coastal Plain of Southern Califor- nia," by Frank Adams and Martin R. Hnberty of the Division of Irri- gation Investigations and Practice of the l^niversity of California. This report has been prepared with the financial assistance and the close cooperation of the Division of Water Resources, and is therefore available for publication by you as a cooperative report, if you so desire. fn transmitting this report, it is desired to recall that the questions wliicli enter into the value of water for irrigation are exceedingly com- plicated. Tliey involve not only some of the fundamental principles of economics, but also the practical application of those principles to varied physical and economic situations in the field. Because of the limited time available for the investigation leading up to this report, the authors have chosen to confine themselves very largely to the assembling of data, to acquiring an intimate understand- ing of the physical situations in the southern coastal plain as they are related to its agriculture, and to the presentation of the information assembled in such manner as to make it most useful to those concerned with particular problems in which the value and cost of water are factors. It has seemed best to the authors to discuss the principles involved only to the extent necessary to make clear their procedure. Very sincerely yours, Dean. College of Agriculture. Berkeley, California June 1, 1933. (10) k ACKNOWLEDGMENT In the preparation of this report the authors have had the very helpful counsel of the following advisory committee appointed by Dean Hutchison : Dr. L. D. Batchelor, Director of the Branch of the College of Agriculture in Southern California ; R. L. Adams, Professor of Farm Management ; M. R. Benedict, Professor of Agricultural Economics ; Professor L. B. Smith. Assistant State Leader. Agricultural Extension Service; AVarren R. Schoonover, Extension Specialist in Citriculture ; and L. W. Fluharty, Specialist in Agricultural Extension. A pre- liminary draft of the report was submitted by the writers to a group of growers and others interested at Los Angeles on April 28, 1933, and many valuable suggestions were obtained from them. This prelim- inary draft has also been read, and helpful suggestions for improve- ment submitted by Professor R. AV. Hodgson, Assistant Director, and S. H. Beckett, Professor of Irrigation Investigations and Practice, in the Branch of the College of Agriculture in Southern California, and by David "Weeks, Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics. Berkeley. The Irrigation Division of the Bureau of Agricultural Engineering, United States Department of Agriculture, furnished field headquarters at Pomona for the investigation, and Paul A. Ewing, Wells A. Hutchins, Harry P. Blaney, and Colin A. Taylor of that division read the preliminary draft and gave helpful suggestions regarding it. Acknowledgment of assistance by others is made in the text. (11) ORGANIZATION STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Earl Lee Kelly Director of Puhlic Works Edward Hyatt State Engineer The South Coastal Basin Investigation was conducted under the supervision of Harold Conkling Deputy State Engineer Maps showing the irrigated crops in 1932 were pre- pared under the immediate charge of the following: South Coastal Basin George B. Gleasox Senior Hydraulic Engineer Ventura County R. H. Jamison Senior Hydraulic Engineer ( 12 I ORGANIZATION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE Cooperating in South Coastal Basin Investigation C. B. Hutchison Dean College of Agriculture This report was prepared by Frank Adams Professor of Irrigation Investigations and Practice and Irrigation Economist in the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station and ]\Iartin R. Huberty Assistant Professor of Irrigation Investigations and Practice and Associate Irrigation Engineer in the TJniversity of California Agricultural Experiment Station (13) FOREWORD This report is one of a series of bulletins on the South Coastal Basin Investigation which is in most of its phases eonfined to the coastal areas of Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange counties, designated South Coastal Basin. The scope of the present study has been enlarged to encompass Ventura and San Diego counties as well. Most of the field and office work for this bulletin has been on the citrus industry, and there is no line of economic demarcation between South Coastal Basin as above defined and the other two counties. The report has been prepared by the authors, representing the College of Agriculture, University of California, at the request of the State Engineer and the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. It is ])rinted with tlie consent of Dean C. B. Hutcliison of the College of Agriculture. ( M ) THE VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION IN THE COASTAL PLAIN OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA By Frank Adams' and Martin R. Huberty^ CHAPTER I . INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY REASONS FOR STUDYING THE VALUE AND COST OF WATER In most of western United States, including: most of California, it has become customary to thinlc of irrigation as tli€ controlling factor in agriculture. This is not because the importance of good soil and favorable climate are not recognized, but because in areas of limited rainfall, intensive agriculture is not possible without irrigation. The coastal plain of southern California,^ to wliieh the present report applies, is an area in which an intensive agriculture of a hig-h type has been built up under irrigation. Over 600,000 acres in the six southern coastal counties is now being farmed, and the annual value of the product of the citrus groves alone approximates one hun- dred million dollars. Investments in water supply and major irrigation works have already in some cases reached very high figures as compared w^th investments for similar purposes in most of the other irrigated areas, and it is not iniprobalile that still larger investments w'ill be necessary before the water of even the local watersheds will be fully utilized to the extent that will be economically desirable. Although water imported by the city of Los Angeles from its Inyo and ]Mono county sources and the contemplated supply from Colorado River being provided by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern Cali- fornia is intended primarily for domestic, municipal, and industrial pur- poses, agriculture is already absorbing and may for some years to come continue to absorb a part of the suri->lus. While the importation of these outside supplies could not he paid for by agriculture alone, its contribution to the cost may be material. In view of the situation that has been outlined, it is clear that the value and cost of water for irrigation are matters of the utmost impor- tance to the people of the coastal plain of southern California. What expenditure is it worth while for a farmer to make for irrigation water? If it is proposed to provide an irrigation water supply for land not yet developed, what investment can profitably be made for 1 Professor of Irrigation InvestiRation.s and Practice in tlie University of Cali- fornia and Irrigation Economist in tiic University of California Agricultural Experi- ment Station. = A.ssistant Professor of Irrigation Investigations and Practice in the University of California and Associate Irrigation Engineer in the University of California Agri- cultural Experiment Station. 3 As used in the present report, the term "coastal plain of southern California" includes the valley and cultivatable foothill and rolling lands of the counties of Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego, lying on the ocean side of the ranges of mountains which separate the coastal areas from the interior desert areas : also all of Orange County. It is therefore more extensive than the immediate coastal belt which, as will appear in the report, is of special significance in citrus culture. (15) 16 DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES that purpose? If a proposed water conservation project is desirable because of the general benefits that will accrue to a particular area or to the State, in addition to the specific benefits that accrue to the land on which the conserved water is or will be used, what part of the cost can be charpred against agriculture without impairing existing farm values, or without deterring the development of the new lands on which the water might be used .' Although these are all questions which vitally concern the people of the southern California coastal plain, they are likewise questions Avliich concern the State. Tliis is not only because the welfare of the southern California coastal plain is closely related to the general welfare of the State as a Avhole, but because the State is being called on to assist in further water developments and also because it must pass on the feasibility of irrigation districts organized to make water available for irrigation, on the rates charged for water by public-utility water com- panies, and on the subdivision and sale of farm lands, which throughout southern California require irrigation. The State is already directing itself to a thorough study of further water conservation possibilities, especially in the Santa Ana, San Gabriel and Santa Clara River basins, and it is known that opportunities exist for important additions to the present farm water supply through surface and underground storage and rectification of sewage and other city waste waters. Los Angeles County, through the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, is Avell along on a com- prehensive program of flood control through storage, and while intended primarily for flood control, the works being built will con- serve the major part of the mountain wastes of the San Gabriel and Los Angeles rivers for irrigation. Perhaps of still greater immediate concern, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is now constructing its aqueduct from Colorado Kiver, and for many years to come should be in a position to furnish a large supply of water for use in irrigation. In any of these enterprises, the value and cost of water for irriga- tion stands out as among the most important economic factors involved, if not the controlling one. It will not be presumed in the present report to answer with finality the questions that have been raised, or the numerous other questions that will arise in connection Avith the value and cost of irrigation water in the southern California coastal plain. Few if any such questions can be answered except in a broad and general way, because the facts on which the answers must be determined are not all available ; nor are the principles on which some of the answers must be based fully recognized or developed. For instance, what a farmer can afford to pay for irrigation water and still maintain a profitable farm enterprise Mill depend very largely on his investment in land and improvements. It might be argued that he can not afford to pay more than he is noAv paying, because the value of his investment in land and improvements is aln-ady fixed largely by liis i)resent water costs, liut chaiiginir c'onditi(»ns might i'oiiq)el him or permit him to pay more, or conceivably they might enable him to obtain water for less than he is now paying. In either case uncertainties are involved. Even the expression "what the farmer can nfford to pay" VALUE AM) COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 17 is aa iiitlctiiiitc one. A taniifi- iiii;;lil he alilc "t(i atVoivl" a ('crlaiii cliarjro for water Avliicli i1 would not he to his advantaj^e, ecoiioniically. to pay, because in excess ol' the value ei-eate(i throuyli tlie use of the water. The couviTse of this nii^lit also he true. Af?ain, the amount that can be profitably spent to provide an irrigation water supply for undeveloped lands will depend, finally, on the value water will add to those lands. This in turn will depend on the net income which can be obtained above other costs than for water, and the latter can only be (estimated. It will also depend on the value of the undeveloped hmd without water, and on the neces.sary costs of preparing the land for planting and for subdividing it. These can be reasonably determined or estimated for particular areas, but this has not been possible in the present study, nor would general determinations or estimates have value. Still further, the amount a farmer will find it to his advantage to pay for imgation water is governed somewhat by his standard of living, and to some extent by whetlier his land is farmed as a means of family livelihood, as a strictly commercial enterprise, to produce part of his home food requirements, or to supplement an income obtained mainly from another source or sources. AVhich of the latter purposes is to govern might be assumed, l)ut there is no satisfactory basis for assuming a particular standard of living for the farmer, or the income needed to maintain it.^ Because of the indeterminate nature of many of the factors that enter into the value and cost of water, and because the time available for the investigation on which the present report is based has been limited, the ob.jective of the investigation has been restricted mainly to the gathering of information which bears on the cpiestion of the value and cost of water in tlie southern California coastal plain, and to its presentation in such form as may aid in its application to particular situations or conditions. The data presented are thought to justify certain generalizations and some specific conclusions, and these are pre- sented in the concluding chapter of this report. - ^ It will be apparent that many different considerations enter into the value of water to a farmer and what he can pay for it, but to di-^scuss, or even to attempt to mention, all of them would expand the text of this report unnecessarily in view of its purpose. A few of these other considerations are the size of the farm unit, the efficiency with which the farm is managed, and whether the water in question is needed to supplement an inadefjuate supply. It has been suggested that whether a farmer can afford to pay for an additional supply of water as much as his farm income will permit, when taking into considera- tion other costs and the value of his investment, will depend on whether the capital that will be necessary for using the additional supply of water can be more profitably employed elsewhere. It is clearly possible that, rather than to destroy an existing investment by going without water, or by reducing the quantity used below the minimum require- ments (see footnote, page 19), a farmer will pay for water his entire income above other out-of-pocket costs, with nothing left for intere.st on land and other related investment. This, of course, may be the situation in the case of the marginal farm. - Costs of producing water or prices paid for shares in water companies, although referred to incidentally in the text of this report (table 38 and page 90), have not been considered in connection with the value of water for irrigation, since the primary purpose of the report is to deal with what it is "worth while" for farmers to pay for water, or, expressetl differently, what it is "to their advantage" to pay. An interesting paper entitled "Cost and Value of Water in Southern California," presented bv Professor Franklin Thomas before the Los Angeles Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers, deals briefly with the.se subjects. This paper is to appear in Civil Enqineerinfi. published by the American Society of Civil Engi- neers. Those interested from an historical point of view will find it profitable to consult Wm. Ham. Hall, "Irrigation in California (Southern)"; or for later data, the following: C. E. Tait. "The U.se of Underground Water for Irrigation at Pomona, California", U. S. Dept. of Agr., Office of Experiment Stations, Bulletin 236, page 90 ; Harry F. Blaney, "Cost of Water to Irrigators in California", Calif. State Dept. of Public Works, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, Bulletin 8, p. 56, 57. 2 — 3985 18 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES While in the main, the developed agricultural lauds of the southern California coastal plain are operated with the same motive that leads to the cultivation of farm lands elsewhere — that is, to earn both a liveli- hood and a profit for the operators — questions relating to the value and cost of irrigation water are complicated in southern Califoniia by a number of somewhat unusual conditions. One of these is the very wide range of crops g^o^^'n. Another is the extensive use of agricultural lands for small suburban farms which may be able to pay more for water than farms generally can pay. "Where these small farms are near to the cities, or at least reasonably accessible from tlie industrial centers, the products grown are largely for family su.stenance or to supi)lement the incomes of industrial or other city workers. Higher costs for water than generaliv will be wortli while in farming mav also be paid by some of the larger farms which are operated by those who do not entirely depend on the income from the products grown, but have acquired them chiefly for residential purposes. Wliile some thought has been given in the present investigation to the various sj^t'cial conditions mentioned, the chief purpose has been considera- tion of the value and cost of water from the standpoint of holdings operated to earn a livelihood and a profit for those farming them, or of corporation and individual farms which are operated solely as business enterprises apart from considerations of family sustenance. While there are still some cases in the southern California coastal plain where water for irrigation is supplied by public utilities, and charges for water are imposed in accordance ^^^th some one or more of the principles underlying the fixing of public-utility rates, water is in most cases supplied by mutual water companies, irrigation districts, or private ])umping plants, and wliatever it costs is the amount that must be ]iaid for it if it is to be used. Values in land tend to become adjusted to these cost.s. A somewhat ditrerent problem arises in con- nection with the di.sposal of water brought into southern California primarily for domestic, municipal, or industrial uses and only inci- dentally for agriculture. Under the latter conditions principles of rate-fixing followed by public utilities may govern the rates for water used in irrigation on farms of the type with which the present investiga- tion chiefly deals. Although the importation of water supplies may lead to some shifts in the utilization of present sources and conceivably may introduce competitive factors where the cost of water from local .sources is very high, this problem is not imminent, and has not received specific consideration in the present study. NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION In an earlier report by the same authors,^ what were therein termed "permissible annual charges" for irrigation water in upper San Joaquin Valley were determined, chiefly on the basis of cost of pro- duction and farm income. In general, this approach is used in the present study. It is recognized, however, that for any one farm the cost of production is not in any sense fixed, but will vary with the prices and amounts of labor and materials used, with the annual and 1 Stat.' of Ciilifcrnia. Di-iiartnifiU of I'uMit- Work.s Hull.'tin M. ••I'.-nnissible Annual CliarRi-s for Inij;iition Water in Upper Sun Joaquin Valley." by Frank Adams and Martin K. Huberty. 1930. vaJjUe and cost op water for irrigation 19 seasonal needs in such fai'tors as frost protection and disease and jiesl control, and also with the income as determined by yields and i^rieos of the products grown. It is also recognized that yields may vary as more or less is expended in the various cultural processes, and that there are difficulties in attempting to forecast cultural requirements and prices. It is furthermore clear that water is not independent of the other factors of production, although the quantity needed is a relatively fi.xed one for any soil or crop or climatic condition, and not subject to variation in the same degree as other materials if the orchard is to be maintained in normal condition.^ Nevertheless, the cost-of-production approach, although generally recognized as of doubtful value in certain types of farm economic studies, is considered a justifiable and practical means of studying certain phases of the value of water for irrigation and of Avater costs which it is worth while for growers to pay. In using this approach, it is, of course, necessary to assume that costs other than for water are measurable in terms of established practice, and that with adjustment of both costs and income to price levels consistent with the outlook for the future, a basis is furnished for estimating within useful limits the residual income over other costs than for Avater. While, as wdll appear later, the cost-of-production and yield records used in the present study cover the wide range usual in farming everywhere, it is possible, either by accepting the costs as they appear in the records, or by amending them in some particulars when the trend in expenditures justifies, to arrive at a range of costs whicli may reasonably be con- sidered representative for the local areas or districts to which they are applied. In the present study conditions are far more complicated and the range of values far greater than in upper San Joaquin Valley, to which the preWous report mentioned applied. It has therefore been found necessary in the present study to go into matters not dealt wdth, or dealt -sA-ith only in a limited way, in the upper San Joaquin Valley study. For instance, in the coastal plain of southern California more attention needs to be given to the effect of the cost of irrigation water on the use and value of the land, and more weight needs to be given to local differences in soil, topography, climate, frost hazard, and fertilizer requirements. Also, taxes are a larger part of the total cost of production, especially, as is not infrequently the case, where the agricultural areas are embraced ^nthin the limits of the incorporated cities. The relatively large extension of subdivisions into the commercial agricultural areas, already mentioned, is another complication. Finally, there arises the question of the unused lands, shifts from one type of so-called permanent cultui*e to another, such 1 According to the finding.s of the Division of Irrigration Investigations and Practice of the University of California, tlie minimum water requirements are met if the moisture in the soil i.'s maintained above the wilting point and the maximum requirements are met if the soil moisture is kept safely above the wilting point. Adding water when the moisture content is safely above the wilting point will not add to the quantity or the quality of the yield. Tliese conclusions have been found to hold for deciduous and citrus trees and vines. It may be admitted that reducing the moisture content of the soil below the wilting point will reduce yield ; also that doing this when the trees are not using much water may be possible without costing more in reduced yields than the water withheld would cost. The statement in the text, however, is generally true, because the general practice under good orchard management is to keep trees growing normally. 20 DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES as from walnuts to citrus, and the local differences in water require- ments due to the differences in rainfall and temperature. While all of these special conditions have not been specifically considered, most of the more important of them have been. SOURCES OF DATA AND PROCEDURE IN FIELD STUDY As in the previous study referred to, the authors have in the present study received the hearty cooperation of the Agricultural Extension Service of the University of California, and have been supplied ])y that service with approximately 100 records of cost of production and yield obtained by the farm advisers in farm enter- jirise efficiency studies. The California Citrus league, through F. 0. Wallschlaeger, has also extended its cooperation and has given the writei-s access to their cost-of-production and yield records, from which 3- to 5-year records for some 900 citrus groves have been t-aken for .study. More than sixty local citrus packing houses have furnished summaries of the yields of their grower membei-s, and of the prices paid such members for their products. Similar information has been given for the walnut packing houses by the California Walnut Growers' Association, through A. W. Christie. Mr. Floyd D. Young, Senior Meteorologist, in charge of the frost protection service of the United States Weather Bureau, has supplied detailed data as to the frost hazard in the various portions of the area studied, and the farm advisers of the six southern counties, the citriculture specialist, and other members of the stafif of the College of Agriculture, have cooper- ated freely in assisting the writers to obtain an understanding of the cultural and economic problems involved in the agriculture of the southern California coastal plain. ^ About two-thirds of the groves for which c()st-()t'-])roductiou and yield records have been used have been visited by the writers and an attempt made on the ground to correlate soil, climatic, and cultural factors with the conditions of the groves and the yields being obtained. Data regarding present costs of irrigation water have been obtained from a previous publi- cation of tile State Department of Public Works.- l)rought down to date by direct inquiry ; also from the cost-of-production records above mentioned. Figures regarding bare-land and developed-land values have been obtained in conference with numerous agencies and indi- viduals. Information as to crop acreages has come both from the Federal-State Cooperative Crop Reportins Service and from the county horticultural commissioners. Finally, material assistance has been received from the Division of Water Resources. State Depart- 1 The foUowing members of the field staff of the ARricultural Kxtensinn Service have materhtlly aided the writers, in field trips or in conferenc-e.s, or both : Warren R. Hohoonover, extension speciali.«t in eitriculture, Riverside ; V. F. Blanchard, farm adviser, and T. R. Merryweather. assistant farm adviser, Ventura County ; M. B. Rounds, farm adviser, and M. H. Kimball. W. H. Williams and A. G. Salter. as,sistant farm advisers. I.,os Anseles County ; H. E. Wahlberp, farm adviser, and assistants, Oranpe Countv : H. J. Wilder, farm adviser, and assistants, San Bernardino County : M. M, Winslow, farm adviser, Riverside County: and J. G. France, farm adviser, and .1. C. Miller, assistant farm adviser, San Diepo County. Dr. Harry R. Wellman, specialist in agricultural extension, Berkeley, has been frequently consulted regarding the price outlook for southern California farm products. Mr. A. Shultis, of the Berkeley office of the Apricultural Extension .Service, has aided in the interpretation of .\Kricultural Extension Service records. -State of California. Department of Public Works Bulletin ;iG. "Co.st of IrriRa- tion Water in California," by Harry F. Blaney and Martin R. Huberty. 1930. VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRKIGATIOK 21 ment of Public Works, both financial and in the matter of furnishing maps showing present irripition (levelopmeiit. REGIONAL AND LOCAL DIFFERENCES RECOGNIZED There are numerous regional and local differences in the southern California coastal ])lain Avhieh it is desirable to recog^iize in a study such as the one in hand. In the first place, there are three more or less distinct areas which are separated athei"ineen found material in most of the areas for which records from both agencies have been used. The average difference for oranges has been found to be $6 an acre and for lemons, $9.60, the higher figures in each case being for the Citrus League records. There are no set rules for including as a cost depreciation on improvements which are definitely a part of the land itself. These include original levelling, ditching, irrigation pipe lines, and drainage lines. Decision has been reached in this study to consider the improve- ments such as original levelling as part of the land and not .subject to depreciation, but to make allowance for depreciation in the other items mentioned; also to make allowance for depreciation of "perma- nent" plantings, which in the present report means trees, vines, and alfalfa. If the problem under consideration were primarily a deter- mination of a basis for rate-fixing, the investment sunk in the land, such as for levelling, Avould, of course, deserve consideration. As stated, however, it seems more logical in the present study to count such improvements as part of the land. Because the cost-of-production data used in the present study have come mostly from the California Citrus League and the Agricul- tural Extension Service of the University of California, the only practical course, with one exception, has been to adopt the deprecia- tion charges as given in their records, though there has not been uni- formity in the rates applied or in the valuations for purpose of com- puting depreciation. The exception is in the case of trees. This item is not included in the Citrus League records, but is an important item in those furnished by the Agricultural Extension Service. The amounts allowed for depreciation will appear in the discussions pertaining to the several crops studied. Tn tlie case of citrus trees the same allowance has of course been applied to tho Citrus Tjcague and the Agricultural Extension Service records. Since the objective in using eost-of-production records is, in the first instance, to obtain the residual mcome over other costs than water, both the costs of water and allowances for depreciation on the equipment used in supplying water, such as irrigation wells and pump- ing equipment, have been eliminated. Another important item about Mhich question arises is that of interest on investment in land and improvements. This is not included as a cost in the Citrus League record.s, but is included in those of the Agricultural P^xtension Service. The principle adhered to by mo.st economists is that interest on land and on investments sunk in the laud, such as for original leveling and drainage, is not properly a eo.st of pi-oductioii. and that pi-jiicipU* is adhered to in this report.* ' Land i.>< not reproducable, whereas, the oilier ilem.s included are i-eproducable at .Slime cost. The amount paid for land for iiniirovinp it doe.<5 not affect its produc- tivity or determine its value. The value of land arise.s from the amount It will produce over and above the cost of operating it. includinp depreciation on the itujirove- inenls which liave been made un it for the piirpt)se of increasing its natural productivity. VALUE AND COST OF WATKR FOR IKKIGATION 25 Eliininutinj? intorost on land as a cost 1. and it seems ai^propriate to a.ssume that a lower price scale than that which obtained in the period 1926-1931 will be in effect during the years just ahead. It has there- fore been necessai-y to make adjustments in the items covering labor and material to price levels wliich it seems i-easonable to anticijiate for the future. This involves a certain amount of speculation, espe- cially in view of the recent inflationary measures that have been enacted by Congress, but it can not he avoided. For the purpose of making ^ Many of the citru.s and walnut grower.s of southern California, especially many of the ritriis growers, hire work done which requires special and exi>ensive equip- ment, such as for spraying and fumig'ation. and fretiuently also cultivation. In such cases the charges paid presumably include- an amount for interest on the equipment used, although not specified. 26 DrVISION OF WATER RESOURCES these afljustments, prices paid for labor and for materials used in frrowinfr the principal southern California crops have been obtained as of 1I):{2. Prices for la])or and materials liave l)een assumed which fall between the averagres of the years 1926-1931 and the year 1932. Uncertainties as to the future eliminate the need for attempts to arrive at statistical refinement. In ^'■eneral, the unit prices for labor in citrus and walnut production adopted in the study are 40 cents an hour for such operations as pruniufi;. frost protection, tree care, and tractor drivinjr, and 30 cents an hour for irrifratinpr and miscel- laneous lal)or. T'nit prices used for materials have been reduced 20 to 30 per cent from those paid in H)2*). The percentajre reduction applied in connection with each crop will Mppeai- in the separate discussions of those crops. Furthermore, a more detailed presentation of the data fi'om which the reductions made hriv(> ])een comjinted is included in the aj)pen(lix. (Table F.) Taxes are another cost which it is p:enerally conceded will be reduced. Tlie amount of i-eduction will, of course, not be uniform between tiie different areas, lar. (' and D in the api)endix, cover not onl\" a wide range of i)hysical conditions, but also a wide range of costs and yields. Subdivision of the southern coastal jjJain into a number of areas on the basis, chiefly, of climatic and soil differences VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 27 has made it possible in sunininrizinp- the data to oliminato the princi- pal ineonsistencics due to ])hysieal I'aetoi-s whieii Avoiild arise if these diirerences Mere not taken into account. While sumiiuirizing the data by separate areas limits to some extent the options in statistical analy- sis, it makes possible a more truthful presentation of costs and yields in the various districts of the southern coastal plain, and facilitates the application to i)articular situations of the conclusions reached. Of the various nu^thods of summarizing' statistical material, three h;\\o hern cousidei'ed. viz: to show the median, the mode, or the average. Xonc of these luis stHMUcd wholly satisfactory.^ Of the three, the average seems most approi)riate, yet neither this nor the median nor the mode takes sufficiently into account costs and yields on farms which fall within the margiual range, and these need to be considered. Because it is coHsi(l(>red preferable to tlie median or the mode, conclu- sion has been j-eached to use, in ])art, the average in summarizing- most of the data which follow. However, instead of ascertaining the averages for all growers in ;m\' <\vo:\. it lias seemed best, when using averag:es, to elimiiiate the ui)])ei- and lower quarters and to make the averages relate oidy to tlit> middle half of the g:rowers. This plan is followed because in some of the areas the range in the upper and lower quarters is so erratic as to reduce the representativeness of the averages. If the number of records available for the different areas varied less widely, the averages would not be confined to the middle half alone. While average figures are customarily used by the public gener- ally in connection with such matters as costs of production and yields, they do not satisfactorily represent as large a proportion of growers or conditions as it seems desirable to take into account in a study of the value and cost of water for irrigation. For instance, the average grower might find it worth w^hile to l)ay $.S() an acre a year for water for irrigation. This would then be more than half, or approximately half, of the amount the growers might find it to their advantage to pay. So far as this report is concerned w ith what it is worth while to pay for irrigation water, or with "permis- sible" irrigation costs when used in this sense, the usefulness of the report, it is believed, would be reduced if the data assembled were summarized pnly in such a way as to show the situation of the average farmer in each area. Therefore, in addition to showing the average costs of production and yields in summaries presented in the succeeding chajitci's, there are also shown the costs of production and yields of the least favoi-ably situated growers in the upper two-thirds group. Costs for water which they will find it worth while to pay, or values ' Thf median nt a group of value.s arrayed in order of magnitude, a.s 1, .5, 7, 9, 11, 15, and 17. i.s the middle one: that is, in this case, 0. The value of the median i.s due entirely to its position in the array and i.s not affected by the magnitude of the other values in the array, all of which are taken into consideration in an average. For instance, if the above array of figures were clianged to 2, (!, 7, 9, 11, 60, and 100, 9 would still be the median. The average of the first array, however, is 9.3 and of the second, 27. S. 'J"he term "mode" is used in statistical procedure to represent the ijarticular value in a series which occurs the largest number of times. For instance, if ,"> citrus growers have a cost of production of $100, 7 of $120, 2 of $1.30, and .5 of .15140, $120 is the mode. That is, a cost of $120 occurs the largest number of times. W'here a certain value occurs much more frequently in a group than any other value, the mode is clearly the most representative value, but is not satisfactorily representative unless this is the case. In the summaries of costs of production and yields given later in this report, only a few include a sufficient number of records to bring out a satisfactory mode, except in some of the "frequency distribution" summaries given, which will be referred to later. 28 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES which may be griven to the water they use. Avill obviously not be too hijrh for the "bulk" of the jrrowers. t-' SUMMARY The final chapter of this report is devoted to an analysis of the statistical and other data that are presented in Cliapters II to VI. That chapter, therefore, forms the principal summary of the report. However, the followin": brief recapitulation of the main considerations of the report indicates the nature of the information assembled and something of the manner in -which it can be applied to the jn'actical question of how much it is "worth while" for the farmers of the coastal plain of southern California to pay for irrigation water. (1) Nine hundred tliirteen ^- to fi-year cost-of-production and yield records for citrus fruits collected by the California Citrus League and the University of California Agricultural Extension Service and eighty-four 2- to o-year records for walnuts collected by the Agricultural Extension Service have been assembled and analyzed, primarily with a view to computing the amount of residual income the citrus and walnut growers of the coastal plain of southern California can expect to receive above othei- costs than the cost of water. These data are presented and discussed in Chapters II and TIT. Less detailed information of the same or similai- nature for deciduous fruits, vines, field crops, and truck crops is given in Chapter TV. Before analyzing the data relating to cost of ])roducing citrus fruits and walnuts, such downward revisions in costs were made as seemed ai)propriate in view of lowered price levels. (2) Fifteen .separate "areas" for oranges, seven for lemons, and four for walnuts are set up for the purjiose of analyzing the statistical data obtained for these crops. The segregation of these "areas" is based on broad climatic differences and on local environmental and physical factors such as soil, topogi-aphy. and frost, wind, disease, and insect-pest hazai'ds. The physical characteristics of these separate "areas" are set forth in some detail, chiefly in the appendix. (3) The residual income from citrus fruits and walnuts above other costs than the cost of water is found to vary significantlv as between the lemon and the walnut and as between a ijumber of the orange areas. Study of the data by these "areas" iiulicates clearly that regional and local differences affect the amount it is worth while for farmers to ])ay for irriiration water. Freriuency distributions show very wide ranges in costs of })r()ductiou. yields, and residual income within the separate "areas." (4) Average annual costs reported in the cost-of-production records }isseiid)led, as well as water costs being paid uiuler typical irrigation coin]ianies or districts in the southern California coastal j)lain. are y:iven ; nd discussed. The hiirhcst "area" average annual wattu- cost reported in the cost-of-production records for citrus fruits is 4^4.3.09 an acre: the lowest. !|il6.fi3 an acre. For lemons the highest and lowest "area" averages are .1;4!t.S2 and $22.24 an acre, respectively, a year: for walimts. .tl4.;i2 and $11.00. ()jd\- one-third of the orange groves covered by the cost-of-i)roduction i-ecords have an animal water cost under $18 an acre; oidy (iiic-lliii-d of th(^ lemon irroves reported have an annual water cost below $24 an acre. Some iiulivi liia! citrus gi-owers report average VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 29 .•ininuil wntcr costs exceed iiixcc<'(liii,u- H^!H) Jill jicrc. In connection with the data relating- to aiiioiiiits bcinu paid for water, information is presented retjfardinfr tlie amounts of water used. Investitxations direeted to determination of the water reciiiii-ements ol" citrus fruits in the southern coastal phiin are cited and the results iriven brieHy. (5) Tile undeveloped agricultural lands of the southern California coastal plain are listed and described from the viewpoint of crop adapta- bility. The final summary of the undeveloped lands shows an esti- mated net area of 470,()()() acres available for extension of agriculture in the southern California coastal plain from San Diego County to Ventura County, exclusive of San Fernando Valley and San Jacinto Basin. The area estimated as "available" for the extension of citrus fruits in the same districts is 169,000 acres. Of the latter, 72,000 acres is in western San Diego County and the southern tip of Orange County, 51,000 acres in the South Coastal Basin, and 46,000 acres in Ventura County. These areas include some land now in annual crops. Tei-ming this area "available" for citrus fruits does not mean that it is all high-grade land, since much of it is not. (6) The cost of water is only one of a lunnber of items of expense that enter into the cost of producing an agricultural crop and there is no fixed amount which a farmer "can pay" for water. The owner of an established farm, in order to maintain his plant- ing, may be willing and find it to his advantage to pay such a high charge for Avater that nothing is left out of income to pay for the use of the land itself; that is, nothing remains to apply to interest on the farm investment or to profits. On the other hand, the assumption is made that the investment necessary to bring new land into production is not likely to be risked unless there is reasonable prospect of sufficient return above costs to maintain a value in the land equal to the investment in it, including the cost of necessary improvements and equipment. The data relating to residual farm income above other costs of pro- duction than the cost of water presented in the report indicate the extent to which the farm income in the diiferent areas or districts is likely to be .sufficient to maintain a value in the land irrigated eciual to the investment in it. (7) While information on what established farmers are paying for water is of general value in connection with estimating charges for water those who develop new land will be likely to obligate them.selves to pay, such information, even when supplemented by data regarding residual income above other costs than the cost of water, is not con- clusive. However, since some will desire to use charges established farmers are paying for water as a basis for determining the feasibility of new water-development projects, summary tables are given which show the minimum, average, and maximum water charges reported in the cost- of-production records assembled, and also the residual income above other costs than the cost of water at certain specified selling prices for oranges, lemons, and walnuts. (Tables 54, 55, and 56.) 30 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES (8) Under tho assumption tluit new land will not be developed unless there is reasonal)le prospeet that the income from it Mill l>e sufficient to pay all necessary annual costs of production and still main- tain a value in the land equal to the investment in it, including the costs of necessary improvements and equipment, the amounts that it will be to the advantage of the farmers who develop the land to pay for water will depend on other costs of production and on the cost of the laud. Since the value of the farm investment is a result of net income obtained or expected, and since the latter is determined by costs of production and the prices received or to be received for the products grown, costs of production, yields, cost of land, improvements and equipment, and prices to be received all enter into the question of the i-harges to be assumed or imposed on land yet to be developed. Believing that the cost and yield records assembled in the investi- gation are representative of the southern coastal plain, tables have been l^repared which show, by "areas," the prices which must be received lor oranges, lemons, and walnuts if costs of production other than the cost of water delivered on the land, interest on assumed investment in land, improvements, and equipment, and specified annual charges for water delivered on the land are to be met, these specified water charges being $10 to $60 an acre foi- oi-anges and lemons and $;i to $40 for walnuts. (Tables 57, 58, 59, and 60.; These tables show that, for the data presented, the following prices for oranges, lemons, and walnuts will ])e necessary to meet the items listed in the ])receding paragraph : A. To the grower of average residual income: Oranges. $1.!>4 to $2.58, f.o.b., per packed box; lemons. $2.69 to $.3.54, f.o.b., per packed box; walnuts, 8.1 to 21.4 cents per pound, net to the growers. B. To growers of least residual income in the upper two-thirds group of growers : Oranges, $2.10 to .$2.77, f.o.b., per packed box ; lemons. $2.72 to $4.81, f.o.b., per packed box; walnuts, 9.6 to 23.7 cents per pound, net to the growers. (9) The price outlook for the products to be grown on undeveloped land when ju'ovided with an irrigation water supply is one of the very important factors to be taken into account in estimating the amounts those who farm such land will find it to their advantage to pay for water. Under the ]U'esent unstable price outlook for the products which most largely determine the value of water for irrigation in the coastal l)lain of southern California, estimates of the amounts farmers "can pay" for water for the remaining undeveloped lands are not considered advisable. However, with prices for oranges, lemons, and walnuts failing within the ranges shown in Tables 57, 58, 59. and 60. those tables indicate within what are believed to be rea.sonable limits of accuracy tiie amounts that "can be i)aid" for water in the various areas with costs ami yields as shown by the records assembled, and under such assumptions as it is desired to make i-egarding the amount of the farm investment. (10) Residual income is shown for other crops than citrus fruits and walnuts to a limited extent only. The amounts being paid for water for the.se otiier crops seem to fall most fi-equently within the range VALUE AND COST OP WATER FOB IRRIGATION 31 of $10 to $20 all Jicrc ;i year. 'Hie |»r()xiiMit \' in soutluM'ii Calitoriiia of larj^c iiiai'kcts for siuli products as (Iccidiiniis I'ruits vvliii-li are coii- sumed fresh, tal)lo {jrajies, alfalfa, and truck crops, gives local {growers some advautaire over those situated at greater distances. Residual income aliove other costs than the cost of water should therefore be a little hiiilier than in areas less favoral)ly situated with reference to local markets, such as San .I(iai|uiii ;iiid Sacramento valh'vs. fjiina beans have been locally looked upon as a protitable crop ^vitll higher water costs than are normally paid in the case of field crops in most of Cali- fornia. Sugar beets are an important crop in a number of districts in tlie southern coastal plain. However, not sufficient information regard- ing either present water costs or residual income above other costs for sugar beets has lieen gathered in the investigation to warrant gener- alizations regarding the amount it is to the advantage of growers to pay for irrigation water. 32 DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES CHAPTER TT COSTS OF PRODUCTION, YIELDS, AND INCOME, CITRUS FRUITS AND AVOCADOS THE CITRUS INDUSTRY IN THE COASTAL PLAIN AREAS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Tlu' products most Avidely grown and at" largest value in the coastal plain areas of southern California are citrus fruits, that is Navel and Valencia oranges, lemons, and grapefruit. The portions of the six soutliern counties to which the present study applies have 79 per cent of tlie total orange acreage of the State and oT per cent of the total orange acreage of the United States. The bearing lemon acreage in these six counties is 90 per cent and the nonbearing acreage 77 per cent of the total State acreage, whil(> 97 per cent of the total lemon acreage of the United States is in California. Thirty-tive per cent of the bearing and 65 per cent of the nonbearing California grape- fruit acreage is in the six southern coastal counties, although most of the grapefruit acreage in "Riverside County is outside of the coastal plain. That the citrus fruit industry is of very great economic importance in the six southern coastal plain counties of California is shown by the fact that the annual f.o.b. value of the product has in recent years generally exceeded one hundred million dollars. Irrigation is required in the production of all of these fruits in California and the amount paid by growers for water represents a large item in the total cost of raising the ])roduct. The amount it has been necessary to pay for water, however, has not as a rule been the limiting factor in tin- extension of the citrus areas. In most cases the ability to obtain water has governed, and the same situation still generally exists in those sec- lions of the southern coastal i)lain that have undeveloped land suitable and favorably situated for citrus culture. However, the lower prices growers are noAV receiving for their product makes the amount it is Avortli while for them to pay for water of increasing importance. It is not one of the jnirjioses of the present rejiort to discuss in detail the economic outlook for agricultui'al ])roducts grown in south- ern California, yet it seems proper to consider the situation in a gen- eral way because of its bearing on the value and cost of Avater in the citi-us areas in the future. The Washington Xavel oranges grown in Califoi'iiia are harvested during the winter and thei-efore come in direct comi)etition with the output of Florida, Texas, and Arizona. Production is increasing in each of these three .states. For instance, the shipments of winter oranges from Floi-ida have increased an average of r)4r),()0() boxes a year during the last decade. On the other hand. Navel production in California has about reached its peak, since nearly all of the California Xavel acreage is in I'ull |)i-odu('tion. VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 33 Tlu' \'al(MH'ia oraiifi'o (M'o]i of California is iiiark<'1 cd in the sum- lut'f ami is tlieroforc in a inorc favoi'ahic position than the Xavcl ei'()p with roforiMK'o to competition from other i)arts of this countiy. How- ever, prodiK'tioii of summri- oraiipres in Soutli Africa and Australia has been on the increase. There are about 23,000 acres of nonl)eai'in^ OS ff^'c-j"— "c-i rfrt lA 3 c« o H ^ = = « = .^» CI 3 — — r>. 9 C4 s c ff» ^^ •* g , Sf so < s z i 1 OOOtOTOlSC c o Z P3.«>t^S!00 — 3 1 = = •«".=- ccc^ — c^ eo 00 c* C4 ^ u > u. -* w«ooo^ « ;C -^ t>-ec 1 w t^-^-^o 00 p o ■* c^ t^ ;©oo r- z "o 2 — « 00 sa-^ec t^ 1-^ •< 11 .11 c^ r) — r* ^ S £ 13 ^S < % --■ ^- C^ 3i « h* » -- »C :r5 3C C^ SO « < s oc -r M t^ 10 8 "3 C*3 00« OC0«^ ■* f — -^ - z « g TABL OUTH 1 oo rc r-5 r- r- 2 re oor^ r- i« c^ J »c ^ » ^- CO o V >< M .2 3 C3 s U] o CO— 000 — r* s 03 I'* »n -«r »c M -^ .1 0000 »« — H (O t-Trf QC cT« ■0 Z g c^-^ a ^H ■3 S i > oc t^ccoo OS as .* Z c^ — X iceo C5 e>« ? 00 C5 CC '.0 Si «5 CO ^ (t "s « sis' - 5 % fa 2 Ul 1 • 1 > 1 t 1 J J J J 1 1 1 1 t t 1 • 1 • • ( t < ■ till* 111(11 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 Q ; J } 1 J J U] ''III! H >. ;;;;;; ^ c 1 1 It 1 I H g 1 ! 1 ! 1 I gs :;;§;! X a > c c = H :^ £ o o o O a— S.£ a S s 8 I VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION Ho TABLE 2 ESTIMATED ACREAGE OF LEMONS IN THE SIX SOUTHERN COASTAL PLAIN COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA, 1932' County Bearing Per cent of California bearing acreage N'onbeariug> Ix>s -\ngeles 11,066 6,855 3,332 4,595 4,760 6,512 20 75 16 57 8 05 11 10 11 50 15 74 325 918 Riverside - 42 San Bernardino 157 San Diego 837 '3,496 Totals. - 37,120 89 71 5,775 ' From ".\creage estimate.s. California fruit and nut crops, 1927 to 1932," issued by California Cooperative Crop Reporting Service, Special Publication 117. ' With exception o' Ventura County, does not include plantings made in 1932. » From v. F. Blanchard, Farm .\dvisor, Ventura County. TABLE 3 ESTIMATED ACREAGE OF GR.\PEFRUIT IN THE SIX SOUTHERN COASTAL PLAIN COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA, 1932' County Bearing Per cent of California bearing acreage Nonbearings Los Angeles 565 151 =1,485 1,868 180 66 8 2 1.24 12.2 15 3 1.5 0.54 248 Orange 184 Riverside '1,867 San Bernardino 582 San Diego 95 Ventura 125 Totals 4,314 38 98 3,101 ' From ".\creage estimates, California fruit and nut crops, 1927 to 1932, Reporting Service, Special P\jblication 117. ■ Does not include plantings made in 1932. ' Mostly in Coachella Valley, outside the southern coastal plain. ' issued by the California Cooperative Crop TABLE 4 TOTAL ANNU.\L F. O. B. VALUE OF CITRUS FRUITS FOR THE SIX SOUTHERN COASTAL PLAI.NI COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA. 1927 TO 1931 1927 1928 $106,192,858 107,064.151 1929 108,166,660 1930 129,003,812 1931... 89,469,263 From "Southern California crops," annual statistical numbers, 1928 to 1932, inclusive. (Compiled by the .Agri- cultural Department of the Los .\ngeles Chamber of Commerce from annual reports of the County .Agricultural Com- missioners, Federal Department of .Agriculture carlot records. State Department of .Agriculture acreage and price data, and books of various independent and cooperative commodity groups.) A previous segregation of the southern California citrus area.s by Vaile divided it into three main climatic zones — coastal, intermediate, and interior.^ It has been considered de.sirable in the present investi- gation to make a scfrregation whicli fully takes into account the local ditferences that should be recognized in a study of the value and cost of water. Needless to sav, the farm advisers of the six southern coastal- 1 See text, p. 22. 36 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES j)lain counties and the specialist in citriculture of the Agricultural Extension Service "vvere of great assistance in this connection. Because of the importance attached by the "writers to these local areas in the study with which this report deals, brief descriptive and informative statements regarding them have been placed in the appen- dix, pages 147 to 153. The total number of these areas as segregated is 15 for oranges and 7 for lemons. In most cases the areas embrace contiguous districts surrounding or including one or more cities, towns, or other population centei'S. Jn a few cases the districts embracetl ar-e not contiguous, although in the same general region and sufficiently homogeneous to jastiiy their being placed together. The following summary lists the 15 orange and 7 lemon areas, shows the climatic zone within wliich each falls, and gives the population center or centers embraced or around whieli they are located. The frontispiece shows, by relief, the general topography of the southern California coastal plain, and gives the locations of the different areas studied. LOCAL AREAS IN THE COASTAL PLAIN OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COVERED IN THE STUDY OF THE VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRKIATION FOR CITRUS FRUITS Oranges Disiricis included Bostonia, El Cajon, P]scoudido, Vista, Fall- brook Arlington, Riverside, Ilighgrove Tustin, Santa Ana, Orange El .Modena, \'illa Park, Olive, Santa Ana Canyon, Yorba Linda Garden Grove, Anaheim Fullerton, Placcntia Ivedlauds, Bryn ^lawr, Crafton, ^lentone, Highlands East Highlands, Greenspot Ixialto, Bloomington. Eontana Corona. Etiwaiula, Alta Loma. l'j)land, Clare- luont, Ontario, Pomona, Cucamonga, Glendora, Azusa, Duarte, ^Monrovia LaVerne, San Dimas, Charter Oak. Covina Whittier, La Ilaljra, Rivera Ilueneme, Ventura Santa Paula, Santa Rosa Valley Eilliuoi-(\ Piru. Ojai ^^•dl(\^•, Sinii \'alh\\- Lemons Districis included Chula Vista, National City, Bonita Bostonia. El Ca.jon, Escondido, Vista, Pall- brook Whittier and the lemon districts of Orange Countv A)-ea 1 Climatic zone Intermediate 2 .3 4 Interior Coastal Intermediate 5 6 7 Coastal Coastal interior 8 9 10 Interior Interior Intermediate n 12 13 14 15 Tntormodiate Coastal Coastal Intermediate lutei'ior Area (■lima tic zone L-1 Coastal Intermediate L-3 Coastal and inferjiiediate VALUE AND COST OF WATKR FOR IRRIGATION 37 Lemons — Cotiiinuvd Area Climatic zone Disfrirts invluded L-4 Intermediate Corona, Etiwanda, Alta Loma, l'])laiul, Clare- mont, Ontario, Pomona, Cucamon<^a, Glendora, A/nsa, Duarte, ^Monrovia L-5 Tntormodiatr LaVernc, San Dimas, Charter Oak, Covina r.-6 Coastal llneneme. Ventura L-7 Intermediate Santa Paula DATA RELATING TO COSTS OF PRODUCTION AND YIELDS OF CITRUS FRUITS' A total of 913 cost-of-production and yield records for citrus fruits have heen used in the present study. P^ij^'lit hundred thirty of these have been furnished by the California Citrus League and 83 bv the Agricultural Extension Service of the ITniversitv of California. The orange records, totaling 632, include 370 for Valeiicias and 262 for Navels. Lemon records total 247 ; grapefruit, 34. With the excejition of one 2-year record for grapefruit, all records used extended through at least 3 years. Sixty-seven per cent of the total were continuous for the years 1927-1931, 7 per cent for the years 1927-1930, and 9 per cent for the years 1928-1931, all inclusive. Having been collected by different agencies and Avith different objectives, tlie records are not fully comparable as to all of the separate items. In spite of these differences, it has been possible to bring them together for purposes of tabulation and analysis without sub- stantial error of statement. Where differences of consequence occur, attention is called to them. As stated in the general discussion of costs of production in the previous chapter, the Citrus League cost-of-production records do not include depreciation of trees. To make them comparable with the Agricultural Extension Service records, the allowances for this item made in the latter have been added in all tables of costs given in this chapter beginning with Table 11. As used in the present study, how- ever, the amount included for depreciation of trees has been recom- puted to conform to a lower level of prices. Instead of depreciating both orange and lemon trees at the rate of $31 per acre per annum, as was done by the Agricultural Extension Service in computing their cost-of-production records, the writers have depreciated oranges at the rate of $20 and lemons at the rate of $25 per acre. The computation leading to these figures appears in the appendix as Table E. Another adjustment needed to permit grouping the two sets of records together has been to eliminate from the Agricultural Exten- sion Service costs allowances for interest on investment, which Avere not included in the Citrus League records. It has been previously stated that in the present study this item is not considered as a cost. While based largely on records of costs kept by the farmers, the ".survey" method of gathering the data is used by the Citrus League. ]More than half of tiieir cooperators use I'ccord books ])repared by tlie League, and the cooperators are visited at the close of each season by 1 For general discussion of the principles which have guided the use of the cost-of-production data, see Chapter I, p. 23. 38 DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES a representative of the League. Actual expenditures are generally obtained from tlie records prepared by the growers for income ta-s returns. Labor performed by the cooperators or by members of their families is estimated.^ The principal uses for which the information is intended is in connection with tariff and freight rates, although many other uses are made of the statistics by the League. The plan under which records are kept by the Extension Service cooperators provides for daily entry of labor and material used, monthly summary under the direction of the county office of the Agricultural Extension Service, and annual summary by the county office of the Extension Service and the office of the extension specialist in charge in Berkeley. The pur- pose of their records is to increase farm efficiency by gi\ing the indi- vidual cooperators a basis for studying their various farm operations more intensely, and for comparing the costs on their own farms with costs on the farms of other cooperators. Because by far the larger number of records used in the study have come from the Citrus League, the cost data relating to citrus fruits presented in the folloAving pages more nearly reflect the cost- accounting procedure of that organization than that followed by the Agricultural Extension Service. However, except in one of the areas studied, in which the costs in the Agricultural Extension Service I'ecords are generally lower than those shown by the Citrus League records, arrays of costs show those from the Agricultural Extension Service to be distributed fairly regularly throughout the range for all of the records in each area.- In all .statistical studies the value of the conclusion reached depends upon the degree to which the statistical material used is truly representative of the conditions to which it relates. In the present study much cai'e was exercised to insure that the data used are repre- sentative.-' It was not possible to obtain random samples, since the cost-of-production records used were gathered prior to the beginning of the study, ami, as already indicated, for other purposes. It there- fore became necessary to see a large number of the groves to which the records obtained apply. In fact, api)roxinuitely two-thirds of the citrus groves included in the study were visited, in many instances with the local fai-iii iidviscr. Uy thus visiting every important citrus section in the southern California coastal plain, and considering the 1 For more complete discussion, see Chapter I, p. 23. 2 See tables A and B in the api>endix. "There is no general agreement as to the meaning of the word "representa- tive" when used in connection with a statistical stimple. A definition frequently used by economists is that of Marsliall (Marshall, Trinciples of Economics, 8th Edi- tion, p. ;517) in connection witli describing a "representative firm." Sucli a one, according to Marsliall, would not 1)0 "some new producer just struggling into posi- tion, who works undoi- many disad\ nntagcs, and has to be content for a time with little or no profit, but who is satisfied with the fact that he is establishing a con- nection and taking first stejis toward building up a successful business" ; nor would it be one "who by especially long, sustained aliility and good fortune has got together a vast business and huge and oidered workshops, that gives it a superiority over almost all of its rivals." Marshall's "representative firm" is "one which has had a fairly long life, and a fair success, which is managed with normal .ability, and wiiich has normal access to the economies, external and internal, which belong to that aggregate volume of production ;♦♦♦•• WHien the present investigation was begun, it was thought it could be con- fined to "rej)resentative" groves substantially as defined by Mar.shall, but it was found impractical to select the gro\es on that basis. The term "lepresentative" as used in the present import is ther<-fi>re intended to mean groves which are not exceptional relative to the other groves in the same area. Broadly, a grove poorer or better than !M) per cent of the other established and not neglected groves in the same area would not be considered representative of the area. From the above it will be seen that the term "representative" as used in the present report covers a wider range than the "representative firm" of Marshall. VALUE AND COST OP WATER FOR IRRIGATION 39 condition and the local cultural factors as they affect both individual groves and the area groupings nuide, it was jjossible to form a seasoned judgment as to the representativeness of tiie samples. The conclusion has been reached tluit the records collected ai-e fairly representative of the upper 80 per cent of established groves in all areas excepting number 8. In the latter the records are thought to cover the fidl range. Cumulative curves plotting the average yields rr.ATio I UJ a a. it! O 9 >- /' t 1 1 Ai A- (22 RECORI r\'\\ ^ ' \l ,-*'' / 7 y" .../' X] / D- («« "cv,vyr^oy / v^ C^ ,,' (184 REC o«os) ^^^ c y^ r 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF RECORDS Cumulative percentage curves of yields of oranges as reported by 44 cost-of-production records from orange area 11, 22 similar records from the San Dimas-La Verne district in the same area and by 184 packing house records, also from area 11. from one grouj) of 22 groves and from another group of 44 groves, both in area 11, closely parallel a curve plotting the average of three years' yields from 184 groves in the same general area for which paekinu'- house records are available (Plate I). The yields from the 22 groves are from about 20 to about 55 packed boxes i)er acre higher than the averages for the 184 packing-house records, and the yields from the 44 groves fall approximately midway between the yields for tlie 40 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 22 gro',< > and the groves reported by the packing house. However, the parking-house records included all trees, while the others included none 'iider nine years of age; also, the latter covered net acreages, Aviiil :liis was not entirely the case with the 184 groves reported by the pac' iig house. A comparison of the average yields from the groves included in this study in each area Avith the average yields obtained from packing houses in such areas also shows higher yields for the records used in the .study, but again the packing-house I'ecords include all bearing ages and are often for gross and not net acreages. TABULATIONS OF COSTS, YIELDS, AND INCOMES The cost-of -production data described above are presenttni in nine tables. The first three, Tables A, B, and C, give the average costs of production, yields, and when available, the returns to the growers, for each record obtained, the averages being for the three-to-six-year pei'iods covered by the records. Returns to the growers have been available only in the case of the Agricultural Extension Service rec- ords, and api)ear only in Tables A and B. Because of their unusual lengtli, these tables appear in the api^'udix. The other six tables wliii'li present the costs of production shown by the records used ap])ear as tables 5 to 10. Table 5 gives tlie average annual cost of l)r()(luction and yield per acre for oranges in each of the areas studied. Table 6 presents the same material for lemons. Table 7 summarizes from Table (,'' the data relating to grapefruit, showing averages for llu" records grouped together, rather tluni by separate area.s. Tables 8 and 9 give the average amounts paid annually per acre by the growers for the various items of labor and material used in the production of oranges and lemons, as shown by the Citrus League records, and Table 10 presents the .same data for oranges and lemons, as shown by the Agri- cultural Extension Service records. Tn none of the tables listed above has any reduction been made in the production costs to conform to loAver jiresent and anticipated jirice levels for labor and materials, as has been done in all of the subsecpient tables except number 16, relating to prices of citrus fruits. Th(> purpose of the above tables is merely to present the data as gathered. The costs given are incomi)lele in that nothing is included foi- depreciation of trees. Furthermore, while the amounts paid for water are listed in all of the above tables, these .unouiits are not included in the totals given. Atte]iti(>n is called to the small number of records obtained for grapefruit. That number is too small to warrant 'separate conclusions regarding costs and yields of this product, and the records presented can be giveji little weight except as confirming the gcmeral assumption that costs for grapefruit are comparable with those for oranges. Finally, with reference to tables 5 to 10, it should again be noted that each record included is an average of from '] to 6 one-year recoi-ds. (>xcept in the case of two grapefruit recoi'ds. Thus, the total luimhei' of c()in|)lete one-ve;ir records represented in these nine tables is 4,2r)4. VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 41 V) < < u o a & OQ ttf DS U < u CL. OT U O z OS o O < 1 JSI- — iO»00>t^^^CC040C^ 0^ — oooor^irc^co— o> e^C^C^C^ — C^C^»C4CJC^':Dr*coo>»rtOiftoo OcCCX)McOO-^Or^COOO coc^-^-M^wc^itNco-rMeo w» C^iMCO'^'^WC^iOOiCQOiO « C^»C0^C5^Oc0OQ0^^*t«»0 S.-2 (M^oiiOoor^t^-^^o--*":o •i^ — w^c^ ^ w h--^r^orcc^jc^»oai^i^i« i^oooiosi/ji— «ir30*ro«-»r^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ .-^ C^ p-« C^) P 03 a ^H eO:Oect~*c^c*3^iOt^'«*''-'Oi COOiO^C^^Ot^OSOO-^COCO CO a; COI^-- ooc5:o- o >^i o ■^000^^'«*'eoOiOOcoOO COCCC^OsC^t^-'J'CO-^OS'^C^l £« c^i ^ ,-.,-.^^^^^^(-0 u - > S5 <£ cs C^iOt^-f-^— 'OOCC»C"^QSO . to £-2 ^-c*:;Dc^»OTt'ooct^QOO'-'C^»ft ^^ ^^ •-• •— ' -a 03 « Q b. I-. go o 73 S C O) o o M :3 rt w S S O ^ CO uT a: o < u z o s o CO Q -9 U Z o 1—4 H U D Q O o: a, b O to H CT O u -n c t> a o. CO CQ J2 O h E o Q Z u O < U) > < 1 t^tOtaaocrxn 1 r>. r^ lO CO IS -^ 1 ^N ^ ^ e^ -^c^ --3 ™- I ^ t> S 1 S-^ K = U o i-a-^ oo ro -*■ c^ -^ -^ t« — OS c^ 00 r* CO ° « t-co■^^ cs co >o ■n" eoc^ CM-r-r o oao s-^QO -N -'J' -^ ^ CO ^^ "^ i 3 — — ' -- c^c^ «« s OQ NH or^ ift CM c o QO Oi O CM to CO s CM CM -^ « CO — X CM »— C^ CM CM CM a •» H OJ o eg CM CO CM osoeo 1 eo f- — ^- — 1 M IC s «» 0) bO 2 at > 00 iW'^^^COiO < ^ 05C0 ^ IC 00 ^^ o ^ CO CO CO CO oo ^ oo O OO OO O "^ rt •♦^ •-' hJ os^ o t-oO r^ 03 CO t>- »C CM Oi 40 "iZ 1^-- «CM or^ 0) r^i>-oo CM o »o «* -- ^ ^ r* '**' o ^ - O ^ CM CDI^t^ o CM CM !M CM CM CM H «* r^ 00 00 COCO t^ T3 Eo ■^ -^ ff -^ 1" cQ w V V >.r^oooocM eo £ osdeo^co^ — — -NCM— => CM o < o> tr»oaooo t^ 11 -^-Noaoo — is ^•o <9 «1 b <: 1 522322 CQ < :2 s W* CO CO -O a» « c k# L- go o a c a a, O O 93 eg gs £: D. a - Q Z < z o H U G C Oi a. u. o CO H CO O o -1 < z z < o < a: > < ao 1 c^ •o"? s ■o-^ « •— y o >> a-^ o w. t^ = £ r^ -> ^ CO •» CO 1 ** 00 o Q..S ^^ 1-2 •» CO u OS V c CS •• 3 s -' ■«1« o £ •o M c^ cS •» H V u eS Tj« a —M ^ o c « c a < § J CO h4 E ii 00 75 00 •o *fc. r^ s ^ ■^ ts •» CO s P P 5 >o W) _ >o CO M & •o CO o e^ o H •» ^ T3 X t *»■ fc. O es u a; QJ >-^ O p» » 00 V b u ■f. s-S J55 is :^'^ o 1 •< > o E- 1 o oa so 0) v QQ VALUE AND COST OP WATER FOR IRRIGATION 43 < Hi D ■Ji H < ^ OS OS o u < a. fc CO ^< >z Ha; 1 o H II. U, (J a; >- < OQ QZ ii. o OS o a: o Z z < Q < w H Z D O O < > < coo '•* s c^osr^ooo»-*i^oooooeo-fOO--* 1/5 •-' M ^H ■^ c3 or— lO-t-uDt— ^-ooocD^-tooeooio cooo»ooocco*-''^C'»t^eo^iO'- '0> »0 CO -x- -H ^ -* ■rf0000fO<:o*-«^rO5Oi'-''-— I rt* OS — oco>— 'ioor-0'-— ' .— I o -r cs -^ ooco o OCO'-'COOt— OcDCOOSt^^HCO-^CO »-HOiocDm'-'oor^ccr--c^f-co— lO 00 CD CD -^ OS i-H CO CDC^^^W^iO'f-t'^^O'MCIt— ■C-tiOOO ososooosoo— 'co»cr-iC'— 'C^j(M»o-r t— OloOiOOC^-^C^I-r'-'iOClcDcDt- OOS'-HCiJM.— tC^liOT^'OOOSiOU^"^ ?Dt— CD CO CO «— • iC t— •— • "M :OOs<>»cocoao<-"CX)coeoosf-OSCD'-^C^03CDOOOS-fI— CD CD *0 ^H lO CO -^ ^-i •— ' C^ t~- 13 a a o 63 §13.213 « j S c a^ « « S ' £■ tc o o -> -^ o c3 ^ — o H o a V ^ D. C3 Tl o Sd tet^ 44 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES TABLE 9 AVERAGE AMOUNTS PAID ANNUALLY BY GROWERS, BY SPECIFIED .\REAS, FOR THE VARIOUS ITEMS OF LABOR AND MATERI.\LS USED IN THE PRODUCTION OF LEMONS AS SHONS N BY 236 CALIFORNIA CITRUS LEAGUE RECORDS Area' Item L-1 (19)' 1^2 (15) 1^3 (82) L-4(95) L-5 (18) 1-7(7) Fertilizer labor and material Fumigi^t'nn material $44 37 11 08 23 05 47 1 81 3 32 2 29 1 76 6 65 20 65 15 23 21 93 4 36 40 5 01 $48 06 7 77 13 60 82 2 43 4 71 4 62 8 82 2 55 61 90 4 69 12 05 1 54 19 1 40 $48 19 16 31 21 74 2 01 1 30 1 98 44 10 30 3 27 46 47 3 62 15 38 1 64 2 00 1 57 $80 27 22 35 10 68 8 58 57 4 20 90 4 36 89 53 44 4 98 9 90 1 35 2 97 2 62 $63 25 23 80 12 25 6 82 1 08 3 25 01 11 69 1 53 61 52 2 16 8 81 1 36 1 79 1 41 $26 24 11 73 Sprav material 9 83 Frost protection material Ot.hpr mafprial 11 45 77 Team expense 6 59 Team hire - 31 Tractor expense . 6 23 Tractor hire Cultivation labor' 53 49 Irrigation labor 10 17 Pruning 22 84 Tree care 5 14 Frost protection labor 7 10 Other labor 3 82 Totals $162 37 $175 15 $176 22 $208 05 $200 73 $175 71 ' For description of areas, see appendix p. 152. ' Figures in parentheses indicate number of records represented. • This item sometimes includes costs for operations, such as for furrowing out, or miscellaneous team or tractor work not normally entered under this heading. TABLE 10 AVERAGE AMOUNTS PAID .\NNUALLY BY GROWERS, BY SPECIFIED AREAS, FOR THE VARIOUS ITEMS OF LABOR AND MATERIALS USED IN THE PRODUCTION OF ORANGES AND LEMONS AS SHOWN BY 81 AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE RECORDS Oranges Lemons Item Area' Area 3 (16)' 4(2) 5(31) 6(10) 10(7) 12(6) L^(9) L-4(3) Irrigation — Preparation and application .. Fertilizer — Material and application Cover crop labor and seed Labor- Fumigation $16 31 69 34 2 13 6 11 6 32 2 61 02 2 81 39 6 74 18 88 84 6 45 15 7 32 51 17 1 50 $13 72 61 66 2 12 1 67 7 50 5 91 06 16 81 20 19 51 2 45 11 39 08 $13 37 60 08 1 94 6 54 6 79 2 97 03 01 -36 01 ' 27 1 98 73 89 ' 96 o'' 08 $17 86 77 98 1 82 8 95 6 73 2 18 06 06 10 08 7 98 16 42 1 14 8 44 98 11 02 56 02 22 $14 42 92 26 34 65 7 58 84 24 8 84 72 15 44 15 81 1 78 1 24 2 84 9 88 61 7 13 $13 95 39 59 1 98 7 16 9 86 1 39 01 02 13 16 22 35 1 93 6 32 1 36 12 81 19 $12 87 48 00 1 56 5 64 9 15 1 80 01 1 22 08 11 65 23 10 1 68 5 49 2 08 11 21 11 89 $15 06 133 31 10 27 Sprav 1 24 Disease control 33 Parasite control Rodent control . Frost protection 7 55 Windbreak 67 Pruning and brush disposal... Cultivation 20 70 17 60 Miscellaneous 2 71 Material — Fumigation . 13 17 .\! iscellaneous 75 Spray. 3 75 Disease control Parasite control Rodent control Frost protection 5 06 Totals $148 60 $144 07 $132 22 $162 60 $180 62 $132 08 $136 55 $232 17 ' For description of areas, see appendix pp. 147-153. ' Figures in parenthe.scs indicate numWr of recorils repre.scnted. VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 45 Ketori'iice to Table 5 discloses tlie Inct tluit no cost -ot'-prodiict ion records for oranges are included for oranp:e area \'A — plains land west and south of 8aticoy, Ventura County — or area 14 — Santa Clara River Valley between Saticoy and the mouth of Suli)hur Canyon, also Santa Rosa Valley, ^'entura County — and only 10 for oranp:e area 15 — the Fillmore-Piru section of Santa Clara River Valley and Ojai and Sinii valleys. Furthermore, it will be seen from Table G that no cost-of -production records are included for lemons for area L-6 — the plains land west and south of Saticoy, Ventura County — and only 7 records for area L-7 — Santa Clara River Valley between Saticoy and the mouth of Sulphur Can^'on, also Santa Rosa Valley, Ventura County. liealizing the inadequacy of the available data for Ventura County, information regarding yields and returns to the growers was obtained, Avith the assistance of the county farm adviser, from the managers of the principal Ventura County packing houses. The records all apply to mature groves and were selected by the farm adA^ser, the packing house managers, and a representative of the Division of Irrigation Investigations and Practice, with a view to presenting cross sections of the Ventura County orange and lemon industry. This information is presented as tables A-1, B-1 in the appendix. The information in these tables is summarized below. The periods covered by the records in each case include the season ending October 31, 1932. Excepting for one 4-3-ear record for lemons and ten 2-year records for oranges, the records of yields and returns to the growers extend back from 5 to 7 years from 1932. Yields given represent packed-box equivalents for fruit delivered to the packing houses rather than the actual packed boxes sold for the account of each grower. Table A-1, oranges. — Seven 5-year orange records for area 13. representing an average area of 15.5 acres each, show average yields in packed boxes per acre ranging fi'om 101 to 483, and averaging 246. Average returns to the growers, with picking and hauling costs not deducted, ranged from $256.42 to $1,349.67, and averaged $698.27. Fifteen 5-year orange records from area 14. representing an average area of 18 acres for each grove, showed yields in packed boxes per acre ranging from 122 to 460, and averaging 260. Average returns to the growers, picking and hauling costs not deducted, ranged from $318.59 to $1,408.53, and averaged $775.75. Forty-seven orange records from area 15, covering an average of 5.7 years each, and representing an average area of 13.5 acres, show average yields in packed boxes per acre ranging from 77 to 472, averaging 219. Returns to the growers, with picking and hauling costs not deducted, ranged from $249.53 to $1,135.81. averaginir $467.57. Tahir B-1, lemons;. — Twenty-eight lemon records from area L-6, covering an average of 6 years each and representing an average area of 14 acres each, show average yields in packed boxes per acre rang- ing from 68 to 364, averaging 226. Returns to the growers, without deduction for picking and hauling costs, ranged from $203.03 to $1,349.07. and averaged $793.68. The percentage of fruit sent to by-products by the packing houses was 12.38. 46 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Twelve 7-j'ear lemon records for area L-7, representing an aver- age area of 17.5 acres each, showed average yields ranging from 112 to 306 packed boxes per acre, averaging 223. Average returns to growers, without deduction for picking and hauling costs, ranged from $323.24 to $953.83, and averaged $632.59. Fruit sent to by-products amounted to 12.74 per cent of tliat received from the growers. RESIDUAL INCOME FROM CITRUS PRODUCTION ABOVE OTHER COSTS THAN THE COST OF WATER As previously explained,^ the data relating to the cost of produc- ing citrus fruits in the coastal plain of southern California that have been presented or referred to above show the amounts growers paid for labor, materials, and general expenses during a period of higher prices than now prevail, or than can be assumed in the present .study. It was stated that it had been decided to make certain reductions in the unit costs of labor and material, and in taxes, prior to using the data as a basis for studying the value and cost of water. - It has l)e(>n thought best to set up the revised costs in fre(iuency tables' which will show for oranges, lemons, and grapefruit separately how these costs vary. This is done in frequency tables 11, 12, and 13. In these tables only total costs of production are included, and as in the case of tables A, B, and C, and tables 5 to 10, no allowance is made for the cost of water. The totals on which tables 11, 12, and 13 are based are not strictly comparable with the totals in tables A, B, and 1 Chapter I, p. 25. - Materials used most widely in the production of citrus crops are fertilizer, both organic and inorganic, cyanide for fumigation, spray materials, and fuel for frost protection. More money is spent for fertilizer tlian for any of the otlier materials. Keen corrifpetition lia.s existed between dealers in the two classes of fertilizer, causing drastic reduction in prices since 1!)29. The price to the farmer for ammonium sulphate has fallen over 50 per cent during the period 1929 to 1932. It is anticipated that when surplus supplies of organic fertilizers have been utilized, there will be a rise from tlie low prices of 1932. The writers have, there- fore, assumed a reduction of 30 per cent over prices paid during the period the cost records were secured. L'Ximigating is done mainly by large contracting companies. Reduction in prices for cyanide has not been comparable witli the fall in other materials. The increased competition from spraying, which can be done by the individual growers, combined witli a general fall in commiidity price.s, will, it is assiimod, cause a further reduction in the price of this product. Tlie writers have reduced the costs for pest control shown in the records by 20 per cent. With these reductions in the cost of material, a weighted average of 24.7 per cent was secured. For the purjioses of this report, 25 per cent has been adopted for the reduction to be applied to the total cost of materials reported in the cost-of -production records. Prices allowed for labor by the collectors of the cost data have been available. The.se ranged from (UJ cents an hour for pruning and tractor operation to 45 cents for nviscollaneous labor. A census of the prices paid for labor in tlie citrus areas shows that the reductions were not significant until tlie end of the 1931 season. Since that time there has been a greater reduction. It is assumed tliat prices will stabilize around tO cents aii hour for such operations as pruning, spraying, tractor operation, and frost protection, and around 30 cents an hour for irrigation and miscellaneous labor. Substituting these prices for those used in the cost-of-production studies, the total cost of labor was lowered 24.8 per cent. The wxiters have used 25 I)er cent. It is of course to be recognized that, especially imder present uncertainties regarding prices and in view of the various measures that are being taken or proposed looking toward inflation, estimates of future yirices of labor and nuiterials are difficult to make. However, the writers have etideavored to make the ligures used reflect the judgment of those having a practical knowledge of orchard production. •'' A frecpiency table, as will l)e clear from those given In this report, is one in which values arc set up in groups, or "class lnter\als" of some given range, as 100 to 110 boxes, or $10 to $2'i, and the number of times individual values fall within each group or "class interval" is shown. In the frequency tables of this report, the range or "class interval" is indicated in the left-hand column, and the number of times costs, yields, or incomes fall within each range or "class interval" is given in the succeeding column or columns. VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 47 C. since the item of dc^preciation in the lattci- does not iiiclii(l(! depreciation of trees, whieli is included in tlie total costs used in making: up tables 11, 12, and l-'^ Because variations in yield are equally siirnificant with variations in costs, frequency distributions have also been made to show them, these api^earin": in Table 13 for jrrapefruit and in tables 14 and 15 for oranges and lemons. It will be noticed that, with a few exceptions, these frequency tables fail to bring out either costs or yields in the individual areas which can be considered satisfactorily representative of the area as a whole. If the range (class interval) were to be twice or three times that used ($10 in the case of costs and 10 boxes in the case of yields) enough groves would fall within each range to indicate "most repre- sentative" costs and yields, but the value of such statistical treatment in these cases seems questionable. The tables are included rather because thev show most clearlv the wav in which costs and vields varv • ft •< ft. (^ within the areas. TABLE 11 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL COSTS OF PRODUCING ORANGES, IN- CLUDING DEPRECIATION ON EQUIPMENT AND TREES BUT NOT INCLUDING COSTS OF H.\R VESTING. PACKING, MARKETING, OR FOR WATER, ADJUSTED TO ASSU.MED LOWER PRICE LEVELS FOR LABOR AND MATERI.\LS AND ASSUMED LOWER TAXES. FIGURES IN AREA COLUMNS INDICATE NUMBER OF FARMS IN EACH COST GROUP Range in costs, .\rea' dollars per acre' 1 2 3 4 5 6 i 8 10 11 12 15 ToUl 90-100 .. 1 1 lOO-llO. . 1 2 1 I 2 5 8 6 4 5 6 6 7 2 4 ...... 2 2 5 4 ...... 2 2 1 1 4 5 5 4 1 6 6 5 4 4 3 1 ...... 1 2 1 2 6 110-120... 1 1 ...... 6 120-130 1 -. 4 1 5 6 2 2 5 5 4 1 1 ...... 1 1 1 3 4 3 6 6 2 7 4 5 7 13 6 4 10 1 9 130-140. ...... 2 3 1 3 5 2 3 ...... 5 2 6 7 10 18 21 11 9 16 12 17 16 14 11 3 3 18 140-150 4 27 150-160.... 3 2 5 2 3 3 5 2 2 25 160-170 2 3 2 ...... 11 ...... 4 5 2 3 10 4 3 4 ...... 2 ...... 42 170-180 53 180-190... 2 1 1 3 45 190-200 50 200-210 49 210-220 53 220-230 49 230-240 49 240-250... 1 34 250-260 3 2 1 1 1 1 . 1 3 2 2 29 260-270 1 1 33 270-280 25 280-290.... 7 290-300 5 300-310. . 1 3 2 310-320... 1 1 5 1 10 320-330 1 3 Over 330 . 1 2 Totals 12 35 67 24 54 41 88 23 185 44 49 10 632 ■ For description of areas, see appendix, p. 147. ' Lower limit inclusive. 48 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES TABLE 12 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL COSTS OF PRODUCING LEMONS, IN- CLUDING DEPRECIATION ON EQUIPMENT AND TREES BUT NOT INCLUDING COSTS OF II.AR VESTING, PACKING, MARKETING, OR FOR WATER, ADJUSTED TO ASSUMED LOWER PRICE LEVELS FOR LABOR AND MATERIALS AND ASSUMED LOWER TAXES. FIGURES IN AREA COLUMNS INDICATE NUMBER OF FARMS IN EACH COST GROUP Range in costs, Area> dollars per acre' L-1 L-2 L-3 hA L-5 L-7 Total 100-110. 110-120 2 2 2 6 4 6 4 4 5 6 6 2 4 7 6 1 7 3 2 4 2 1 1 3 2 120-130 1 1 4 130-140 2 1 1 1 5 140-150 1 1 3 8 150-160 2 1 2 2 8 160-170 1 11 170-180 ... 1 7 180-19U 2 2 5 9 6 11 8 4 10 5 3 3 1 7 6 6 7 1 9 190-200 1 g 200-210 11 210-220 2 2 1 1 • 20 220-230 9 230-240.... 2 3 3 17 240-250 1 1 2 1 22 250-260 14 260-270... 3 2 1 1 1 15 270-280... 14 280-290. 7 290-300... 1 2 1 8 300-310 7 310-320 1 1 2 12 320-330. 8 330-340 . . 7 Over 340 3 1 14 Totak 19 15 90 98 18 7 247 ' For description of areas, see appendix, p. 152. ' Lower limit incliLsive. VALUE AND COST OP WATER FOR IRRIGATION 49 TABLE 1.1 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL COSTS OF PRODUCTION AND YIELDS OF GRAPEFRUIT Costs include depreciation of equipment and trees, but do not include cost of harvesting, packing, marketing, or water, and arc adjusted to assumed lower price levels for labor and material and assumed lower taxes Ranee in costs, dollars Range in yields, Number of packed boxes Number of per acre ' farms per acre' farms 120-130 120-130 1 130-140 130-140 1 140-150 140-150 1 150-160 150-160 160-170 160-170 1 170-180 2 170-180 1 180-190 3 180-190 4 190-200 190-200 1 200-210 4 200-210 .. 210-220 8 210-220 2 220-230 2 220-230 230-240 1 230-240 1 240-250 1 240-250 2 250-260 3 250-260 .. 260-270 2 260-270 .. 270-280 1 270-280 280-290 280-290 __ 290-300 290-300 1 300-310 .. 300-310 3 310-320 2 310-320 4 320-330 330-340 i 340-350 2 350-360 3 360-370 370-380 380-390 390-400 400-410 1 410-420 1 420-430 1 430-440 440-450 450-460 i 460-470 470-480 480-490 . -- 490-500 i Totals 34 34 ' Lower limit inclusive. -3983 50 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES TABLE 14 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF YIELDS OF ORANGES, BY SPECIFIED AREAS Figures in area columns indicate number of farms in each yield group Range in yields. Area' 1 packed boxes per acre* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 15 ToUl 20- 30 1 1 30- 40 40- 50 1 ...... 1 50- 60 1 SO- 70 3 3 70- 80 . .. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 80- 90 1 2 2 1 1 3 2 7 90-100 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 5 5 9 2 3 2 6 7 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 6 100-110 1 ...... 3 1 ' "i' 3 4 3 5 ■3" \ 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 ...... 6 110-120 3 5 5 7 3 8 9 10 13 7 12 18 10 12 6 8 6 4 4 5 3 5 2 4 4 1 1 ...... 2 1 1 3 4 2 2 2 1 4 2 2 ...... 2 ...... 4 1 1 1 2 1 12 120-130 15 130-140 1 2 2 3 1 2 4 2 4 .. 2 4 5 6 4 3 5 3 4 ...... 3 16 140-150 2 1 3 3 6 4 1 1 5 3 1 1 5 3 1 1 ""2 ...... 1 ...... 1 2 ...... 20 150-160 16 160-170 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 ...... 3 3 1 2 4 1 37 170-180 1 1 2 1 1 34 180-190 5 4 7 2 9 9 2 4 4 8 3 1 2 2 2 2 ...... 2 2 ...... 1 1 3 3 ...... ...... 42 190-200 . 43 200-210 32 210-220 33 220-230 . . .. 51 230-240 4 43 240-250 28 250-260 19 260-270 ...... 1 1 2 29 270-280 26 280-290 . . 18 290-300 11 300-310 2 1 16 310-320 1 1 8 320-330 1 1 ..-.-. 1 ...... 11 330-340 1 1 1 11 340-350 3 350-360 2 2 1 ...... ...... 1 1 t 360-370 1 5 370-380 2 380-390 i 2 390-400 1 1 1 3 400-410 1 Over 410 2 1 1 2 6 Totals 12 35 67 24 54 41 88 23 185 44 49 10 632 ' For description of areas, see appendix, p. 147. ' Lower limit incliLsive. VAIiUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 51 TABLK 15 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF YIELDS OF LEMONS. BY SPECIFIED AREAS Figures in area columns indicate number of farms in each yield group Ran^e in yields, Area' packi'il boxes per acre' L-l L-2 L-3 L-4 L-6 L-7 ToUl 40- 50 1 1 50- 60 1 2 2 6 3 11 3 7 5 7 5 5 2 7 4 3 5 1 tiO- 70 .. . 1 4 70- 80 1 4 80- 90- 7 90-100 . 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 100-110 1 4 1 3 3 6 3 15 110-120 9 120-130 11 130-140 ... 1 2 1 1 2 14 140-150 14 150-160.... 3 1 13 160-170... 10 170-180 2 2 1 2 1 1 12 180-190.... 1 1 13 190-200.. 2 8 200-210 . . . 2 1 2 6 4 4 4 3 7 6 4 2 3 1 4 6 2 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 13 210-220... 11 220-230 1 7 230-240... 2 3 2 2 1 2 6 240-250 1 1 8 250-260 9 26O-270... 1 1 1 1 1 10 270-280 7 280-290. 5 290-300 1 4 1 310-320 . . 1 5 320-330 i 7 330-340 2 340-350... 3 350-360 2 1 370-380. .. 1 2 380-390 1 390-400 2 Over 400... 1 Totak.. - . 19 15 90 98 18 7 247 For description of areas, see appendix, p. 152 . ■ Lower limit inclusive. If it may be assumed that the adjusted costs on which tables 11, 12. and 13 have been based correctly represent what growers may anticipate as necessary, these costs, to^jether with the yields iiiven in tables A, B, and C in the appendix and summarized in tables 5, 6, and 7 in the text, furnisli a basis for estimating for citrus fruits the probable residual income above costs other than the cost of water. ^ To do this, however, it is necessary to use either some single price to 1)6 received by the growers for their products, or some appropriate range of prices. As between a single price and a range of prices, the latter is considered preferable. It would seem that such a range of prices should extend above and below tiie price which will just cover the costs of production. The ranges decided on for the discussions to follow are from $1.50 to $3 per packed box for oranges and from 1 While it has been found desirable to make the reductions in costs of labor and materials mentioned on page 26, it is assumed that the yields shown by the records can be considered reasonable expectations for the future, since they represent averages for 3 to (i years duriiiK a normal period of production. However, these yields are not necessarily the same as the packed boxes sold by the exchanges, because larg-e quantities of oranges have been marketed loose, and substantial per- centages of lemons are annually sent to the by-products plant of th(^ California Fruit Growers' Exchange. 52 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES $2 to $4 ])(M- j)MC'k('(l box for Icinoiis, tlii'sc prices Ix'iiijjr f.o.l). shi])pin}; point. "While ])rice.s secured Ijv tiie iiulividual growers in any one season sometimes vary widely, owing to quality of product and time of marketing, and while annual f.o.l). average prices are likely at times to be lower or higiier than the limits of the ranges decided on, the latter are thought to be sufficiently wide for analyzing the problem under study. In fact, as will appear later, the final analyses on which the principal conclusions regarding the value and cost of water for citrus fruits are reached proceed from still narrower ranges. The average f.o.b. price for citrus fruits received by California growers during the years for which records were available is given in Table 16, this having come from the California Fruit Growers' Exchange through Dr. H. R. Wellman, of the University of California. Differ- ences in prices received as small as 10 to 20 cents a packed box are significant, because to the growers of average yield, 10 to 20 cents a packed box Avill cover the cost of water in most of the citrus areas of southern California. TABLE 16 AVERAGE F.O.B.' PRICES PER PACKED BOX RECEIVED BY THE CALIFORNIA FRUIT GROWERS' EXCHANGE FOR FRUIT SHIPPED DURING THE SEASON Season Navel oranges Valencia oranges Lemons 1904-05 _ $1 14 1 83 1 66 1 60 1 46 1 56 1 51 1 48 1 94 1 35 1 37 1 66 1 74 3 82 3 58 3 90 2 48 3 91 2 70 2 12 3 68 3 56 3 50 4 37 2 74 4 44 2 29 1 92 $2 80 3 26 3 08 2 74 1 85 2 33 2 50 2 34 2 74 1 86 2 33 2 85 2 58 3 92 3 93 4 00 3 35 4 64 2 78 3 24 5 15 3 56 4 09 5 69 2 77 5 70 2 39 1 93 $2 14 1905-06 2 91 1906-07 .. -- 3 21 1907-08 1908-09 1909-10 2 02 2 08 3 41 1910-11 1911-12- 1912-13 1913-14 3 01 2 86 4 99 3 62 1914-15 1 60 1915-16 3 11 1916-17 3 06 1917-18 .. 5 12 1918-19 3 64 1919-20 3 06 1920-21 4 00 1921-22 4 05 1922-23 4 83 1923-24.. 1924-25 2 59 4 55 1925-26 3 27 1926-27 4 05 1927-28 4 84 1928-29 4 66 1929-30 - 5 16 1930-31 4 13 1931-32 3 75 ' The average price.s received by the growers arc of course less than the average f.o.b. prices shown in the table, .since the local exchanges deduct the cost of packing and marketing. It is already clear from the tables which have been jiresented, pai'ticularly tables 11 to 15, that there must be a wide variation in the income to growers of citrus fruits. IIoav wide this variation is and the 111,1 iiiiei- ill which it occurs is most strikingly brought out when I he (l;il;i are arranged in the ("orni of rr(M|iieney distributions. These FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RETURNS' FROM ORANGES PER ACRE BY (Uives the i-aiiires in income above other costs than the cost of water, as to $'20, ^'20 to $40, $40 to $()(), and so forth. The seven columns relatinp- to area 10 show for the different ])rices the mimber of fi'rowers wliose income above other, costs than the cost of water falls within each of the i-anjres or "class intei'vals" Id ffi < H U D Q a; X a o oa oS; 3 u *^ 0, Z 5 ?» Q CO ctq < < tij o a O O O Z [ii S a. Og U [Tl U 8< ^2 Z w II H 3 0. o y ») •0 h o o u b V o *> b u C .0 '3 .„ c U [Jj " _! ":« 3 s < c « •0 u •O a u j: C E _3 u (A u U ^ '2 U CO V X V bfi ce u > a u 2 '• * a . a < 3 u X •o ^^ u C •a .= C9 u X « C E y CM (M Cl M C^ C-> C-> M « '^' C-l — c 35^0 — 0500CMooo!3»aoin o o ea «T7 I 77';' 1TTT°? U5 tT "" '"Mil •• I I I 1 7 fTTTTTTTTTTT f "2 S V - Si S. 2 H -o ?'■« SJ i - 3J a: 2^ -" o c « o g 8 S.I 56 DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES < Z o H O D Q O b; a. b o H c« O U < Q z < z o U H U < 7> u £ u (^ /-; w O Q [i; o o z o < a: u H < z O .J 1 O o: X u < a; u Qh u o u z u H < b O H O U u H H u u X u d z u < Q Z < d z >^ (/5 Q u H O u c c: oc '^ t^ t-* CO W5 33CO O coo C^ ^ — CO — CO II) 03 •» Q o o u O O h* -^ CO 'T > CO C^ Ci 35 OS -^ i < C^ C^J I-" CO --* CO £ u — lO r* ic c-i c CO C*! ^H Ci :© — < 00 COt» 05 o o ffl •i c o 4) CO ■^ 00)00 CSI -M >- C o ic c^^* — ic 2 i! < 2-3 ^3 (M 00 05 -r — o -^ cs'^ -r CO lO PC «» i! « — U3 <«■ 3 CO u u bfi V¥ ^s^^ -C4 00O C^ 05 ^ 1^ '■4» «D CO CO < «i ^ ^ 2 3 8 5 Tf -^ ■*»« OO *C 3) »0 !M ^ -r O CO i,-^ oa ** 1 ! ^ CO (U .S lO II t^ ^ COCg O 05CM r^co^ o 1 oo < «» -H 1 V a If cs aaco coco ^ oa ■« ^ -^ 1 OM - IT ' 1 i o »o u - o r^-i« o o -"r 2 2 0» 1 (M^USCM <: «* 1 1 1 •0 t8 1 1 C^WOO'^ cot^ 4-» U CQ tTTTtT - 5! > VC 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 2 CJ w 61) tm ^^ o « « o! a> -^ (M -^ CD^OOC^ < T 1 1 1 M « :=' ^ i t^ -r r^oo »coo 1- O — =3 ■«• = w bD PQ *?"T T 1 T T I. « 1 1 1 ' M -0 o **- u £2 U5t0 00»0-H -t; 7TTT7T ' i ' ! ft u •0 4> u Q. •o a eg 3 4> J- u rt .f E ^^ <-*■ --^ ^-V -— V 1 01 ic 00 00 f— ^ 3 — C^CO-* "5 1^ -ijjjjjjjj VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 57 of $12.2.') per })acki'(l box would be iiccdt'd to niaUc the industry Jairly compensiitor}' to the avera^'e «rn)\ver, and that price would, in several of the areas, leave the lowest {grower in the upper two-thirds {;rou|) in. or very close to, the niarjrinal class. In connection with these statements it sliould be recalletl that tlie costs taken into account in the jjrcsent report include all materials, all labor hired, i)ayment to tlic farmer for Ms own labor, depreciation on trees at the rate of $"J() pt-r acre, and nsual overhead such as insurance, taxes, and er packed box. only one of the ecial Publication 117. = Does not include plantings made in 1932. Avocados have been given consideration in the present report because in certain sections, chiefly in Vista and San Dieguito irrigation districts, in San Diego County, the avocado acreage exceeds that of other orchard plantings. In such areas the cost and value of water Avill be largelv influenced bv its cost and value for avocados. IIow- ever, being a comparatively recent industry, available records of costs of production and vields are limited, and are ciiieflv confined to those gathered in Orange County by the Agricultural Extension Service during 1980, 1931, and 1982 in connection with their enterprise efficiency studies. Data pertinent to the ])resent .study are summar- ized or computed from these records in Table 21. Xo orchards are included in this table with trees under six years of age in 1931. Tile avocado industry furnishes further examples of year-to-year and orchard-to-orchard variation in costs of production and yields in fruit growing. Cultural costs vary largely because of soil and topographic dilferenees. and possibly even more because the produc- tion of the avocado has not yet become stabilized, and there is no fixed judgment as to what is necessjiry to ju-oduce a profital)le crop. Yields vary widely becau.se of the alternate bearing habits of tlu' avocado, because of the differences in ages of trees and in the varieties, and because, as previously indicated, the essentials of production are not vet fullv understood. ' HodKsoii, Rt)beit W.. "I'lu- ralit'oinia .\vo(adc) Industry. " liiivtisity of Cali- fornia Apriciiltural Extension Service Circular 4:?, .\pril, 1930. Those interested in the various phases of the avocado industry will find it profitable to consult this circu- lar and also l^niversity of California .\grricultural Experiment .-Jtation Hulletin 539, entitled "Sales Methods and Policies of the Calavo Growers of California." by E. A. Stokdyk, September, 1932. VALUE AND COST OP WATER FOR IRRIGATION 59 I o 0> CO 2 < u < El] o < u a. (if o o z < I Z o H O D Q O a a u. o CO H U < Z < > < ■^ ^ or oo =c -^ c^i -* o — O CJ-»i»-QO — ?0 te Sii*— ■ t i/5r-.»o^--ric^-fC -f ?2si iOM-v-^ectc*- oo «»oc^c^-^c^i«o o iOC^IiO'^O'^CXJCS o ooc^r^-^cc-^co^ r^ CO CC oo — C^ C Ox =J „^_ — — _ — ^ E-g^ ** M b c. -?roi-^-*c»-*:oc^ ^^ •^ '•fOO^sr^cRccc^-^ r* 1| co^c — t^C^ — »oco 00 «» O 5 > o CO — 00 — Qor^-ro ■^ — »r3-HCi»Ct^»0 — — oo .:;:: iOiocsiOcct^rcoo ■^r Cj — cc — • — re c^ CO ^ CJ ■«3 •» «» a :s — CCOOCOC^tOOt^ t^ t^-^r^ior-c^'^t^ -T o c;ooirrMO':c> ■«^ .2 't- C3 > c 03 B 'i ^ » V O O) .' v o E CU ^"£'ii'£'£*j'£'ii OVVVVW.OO 33S=)SC3=)S O. b. Eb 1^ ^ H &^ ^ 93 k. .hS a *> h-.r^r*c; — rc»flr^ 00 Is "■ ■" 2 «fS oocjtmcooooo QOC^'r;c-*:ciMO 00 ■< s — c^ w K. •^ Q) M .SJ3 ? is — rj re -f »o -i I- 00 > = < c o (M CO Ci 3 o -o O 3 2-0 CB g. I C u : s> o 2 — -o o _ o n - ■^ s = i 5.2 — § ca B B 5.2 •f gJJ S -o - = o o = o 60 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Another factor "which makes it impossible to reach very definite conclusions regarding the income that can be expected from avocados is the wide variation in prices received. For instance, the average price obtained in 1930 by individual growers included in the Orange County enterprise efficiency studies reported in Table 21 varied from $20.40 to $45.95 per liundredAveight. In 1931 the range was from $7.68 to $21, and in 1932, from $6.64 to $20.27. These price differences are due in large part to differences in market reactions to the numer- ous different varieties and to differences in time of ripening as between the varieties and as between the various areas in which avocados are being grown. There are, of course, other matters which influence prices, but these need not be talcen into account in this report, other than to mention that California mu.st meet heavy competition in avocados, particularly from Florida, Cuba, and Mexico. California production, in so far as handled by the Calavo Growers of California, has increased from 193,800 pounds in 192-1-25 to 3,097,332 pounds in 1930-31. and it is estimated that by 1940 the California output will reach 24,000,000 pounds.^ Aside from the higher prices sometimes paid for land favorable to avocado culture, the extra cost of lifting water to such of the higher areas as are used for avocados, and the i)resent higlier cost of avocado trees for planting, no reason is apparent why production costs of avocados should be much more than for oranges or lemons. That they are not seems clear from the average total costs of production given in Table 21. These fall well within the range of production costs for oranges and lemons. 1 For this phase of the problem reference is made particularly to University of California Asricultural Experiment Station Bulletin ^V.K "Sales Methods and Policies of the Calavo ('.rowers of California." by E. T. Stokdyk. See also University of California Agricultural Extension Service Circular 43, "The California Avocado Industry" by R. W. Hodgson. VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOB IRRFGATION 61 CHAPTER 111 COSTS OF PRODUCTION, YIELDS, AND INCOME, WALNUTS THE WALNUT INDUSTRY Walnuts are an important crop in California, especially in the southern part of the State where the California walnut industry started about iio years ago. The California Cooperative Crop Reporting Service estimates that there were approximately 135,000 acres of walnuts in California in ]n."V2, 22 per cent of which were under six years of age. Walnut acreages for San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernar- dino, Los Angeles, and Ventura counties, and for the State are shown in Table 22. TABLE 22 WALNUT ACREAGE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL PLAIN, 1932i County Acreage Bearing Nonbearing: Total Los Angeles _ _ _ _ 27,384 9,456 4,987 10,508 1,234 20,374 993 114 1,923 1,877 726 4,521 28,377 9,570 Riverside 6,910 San Bernardino San Dieffo _ 12,385 1,960 Ventura 24,895 Totals for counties listed . -.- 73,943 107,198 tJ9.0 10,154 27.596 36.8 84.097 Totals for State 134.794 Percentage of total State acreage in counties listed - 62 4 ' From ".\creage estimates, California fruit and nut crops, 1927 to 1932," issued by California Cooperative Crop Reporting Sernce, Special Publication 117. = Does not include plantings made in 1932. Approximately 69 per cent of the bearing walnut acreage of the State and approximately 37 per cent of the nonbearing acreage lies within these six counties. The relatively low percentage of nonbearing acreage indicates that the center of production is moving toward the north. The manager of the California Walnut Growers Association, in his report for season of 1931, states that 32 per cent of the State crop was being produced north of the Tehachapi. A few years ago, when very high returns were being received from oranges, some walnut growers removed their walnut trees and substituted oranges. These substitutions Avere made mostly in Orange County. However, the reduction of walnut acreage by changing to oranges was more than offset by the increase in new walnut plantings, particularly in the northern part of the State. Table 23 gives a long-time record of bearing acreages, production, and average yield per acre for California Avalnuts. Erdman and Fuhi-iman, in University of California Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 475, "Walnut Sui)i)ly and Price Situa- tion," report that the trend of walnut production in California has 62 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES shoAvn an avera«re annual increase of 6.5 per cent over the period 1895 to 1928. The production of the last few years has caused no marked deviation from this trend. TABLE 23 WALNUT ACREAGE AND PRODUCTION IN CALIFORNIA, 1914-1932i Year Bearing area, acres Production, tons (unshelled) .\verage >ie!d per acre, pounds 1914 34,138 34,453 35,379 45,687 48,520 50.900 58,963 61.781 65.530 66.951 68.572 69,629 71,779 81,118 84,934 89,155 97.453 102.575 107,198 8,900 14.825 14,600 16,500 19,950 28,100 21,000 19,500 27,000 25,000 22.500 36,000 15,000 51.000 25,000 39,000 31,000 28,950 44,000 521 1915 860 1916 825 1917..-. 1918.... _ 1919 - 722 822 1,104 1920 712 1921.... 1922 1923 631 824 747 1924 656 1925 1926... 1927 1,034 417 1,257 1928.... 1929... 1930... 1931 - 1932..-. . .- 589 875 636 564 821 ' Bearing acreages from "California Crop Report, 1927" and "Acreage estimates California fruit and nut crops, 1927-1932," issued by California Cooperative Crop Reporting Service, Special Publications 86 and 117. Production for 1914 to 1928 from "California Crop Report. 1927"; for 1929 and 1930 from U. S. Department of .Agriculture "Yearbook of Agriculture. 1931." p. 745; for 1931 and 1932 from University of California .Agricultural Extension Serrice Circular 71. "The 1933 .Agricultural Outlook for California," p. 53. .Average yields have been computed from the figiires for acreage and production given in the table. Production in the United States. The United States Census of 19:^0 reports that approximately 89 per cent of the bearing and 76 per cent of the nonbearing walnut acreaofe of the United States is found in California, while Oregfon has about 10 per cent of the bearing acreage and 22 per cent of the non- bearing. Production in the latter State should increase rapidly. Xinety-nine per cent of the bearing and 98 per cent of the nonbearing acreage is found in California and Oregon. Pecans and almonds are competing nut crops, over 99 per cent of the latter being produced in California. Pecans, however, have been jilanted in large numbers throughout the Southern and Southwestern States. Importations. The nut supply of the United States is augmented by importations from France. Italy, and China. The yearly importation of walnuts (lui'iiig tlie period 1908 to liKU), in terms of unshelled nuts, averaged 72.095 tons.i Environmental Factors. Wainut trees do best on deep, well-drained, medium-textured soils. Kather wide ranges in soil texture e;in be tolci-ited, but sliallo^^- or poorly drained soils can not. ' Computed from "shelled" importations as given in V. S. Dept. of Agr., "Yearbook ff)r Agriculture, 1931," p. 951. VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 63 Climatii* conditions favornblc to Icinoiis or Valencia oranprps scciii to be well suited to the ^n-o\viii>r of walnuts, except in warmer areas where lack of winter coltl results in delayed foliation. The walnut tree, however, can withstand very low temperatures durinj? the dormant sea- son. Extremely hi^h summer temi)eratui'es cause simburning of the nuts, which materially at^^'ects the (piantity aiul (piality of marketable product. The percentajic of hi{i'h-(iuality nuts usually is greater in the coastal sections. Cultural Practices. lntercroi)pinfi- youn. 1919 14.6 30.2 20.6 24.0 21.3 20.7 23.6 21.9 26.2 18.4 24.6 18.0 19 5 17.9 15.0 100 207 141 164 146 142 162 150 179 126 168 123 1.34 123 103 100 205 206 156 152 153 154 159 156 154 156 155 146 126 111 100 209 1920 205 1921 116 1922 124 1923 — -.- 135 1924 134 1925 147 1926 136 1927 131 1928 139 1929 - 138 1930 -- 117 1931 80 1932 57 ' Walnuts, 1909 to 1913; other commodities, August, 1909, to July, 1914. Data on walnuts from California Walnut Growers Association. Data on other commodities from "The Agricultural Situation," U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bur. of Agr. Econ., Feb. 1, 1933. The record of yields secured by this method no doubt indicates yields lower than would be secured with a long-time record, since the ((uality of the 1931 crop was the lowest of record. Table 25 presents the packing-house data on yields per acre for 1930 and 1931, and quality of crop for the period 1926 to 1932. The yields presented indicate relative differences between the areas rather thiiii the yields that may be secured. The high ma.ximum temperature of llie summer of 1931 caused reduced \ idds, especially in the areas i-emoved from the coast. TABLE 25 AVERAGE YIELDS PER ACRE AND AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF WALNUTS IN THE VARIOUS MARKET GRADES AS SHOWN BY PACKING-HOUSE RECORDS Data from California Walnut Growers Association Number of packing houses represented 9 8 4 3 Average yields per acre, iMDunds Percentage in each grade. 1927-1932 Area 1930 1931 Average, 1930-1931 539 384 906 716 Diamonds Emeralds Off grades Total W-l . .. W-2 W-3 \V-4 717 450 1.173 701 361 318 638 732 51 5 34 8 80 9 51 1 38 5 40 1 11 2 34.2 10.0 25 1 7.9 14.7 100 100 100 100 VALUE ANl!) COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 65 WALNUT AREAS COVERED IN THE STUDY The main walnut sections included witliin these studies have heen g^rouped into four broad areas. Tiu^ areas have been designated AVI. AV2, \V.'?, and "\V4. This j^roupinj,^ is chiefly p;eop:raphieal and to brinji' into sin^-le areas tiie walnut districts which are contij-uous. How- ever, climatic conditions have also been a factor especially as between areas Wl and W2 and as between areas W3 and W4, Area Wl includes the walnut districts of Orange County, exclu- sive of the La Habra district. Area W2 takes in Chino, Pomona, Puente, West Covina, El IMonte, Whittier, La ILabra, and Rivera. Area W3 covers the intermediate and coastal districts of Ventura County. Area W4 includes the walnut districts at ^Moorpark and in Simi Valley. The above divisions into areas have not taken into account all of the factors some of those familiar with the walnut industry recognize. For instance, the coastal belt, as a rule, produces nuts having a light- colored kernel which brings quality prices. Nuts to be placed in the Diamond brand must be at least 90 per cent sound and 60 ^ per cent light-colored. The relatively low percentage of Diamond brand nuts reported for area W2 results mainly from heavy infestations of codling moth. DATA RELATING TO COSTS OF PRODUCTION, YIELDS, AND INCOME, WALNUTS= Eighty-four Agricultural Extension Service cost-of-production and yield records for walnuts have been used in the present study. Orange County provided eighteen 2- to 3-year records for the period 1929-1931 ; San Bernardino County, ten records covering the same period; Los Angeles County, forty-one 2- to 5-year records covering the period 1927-1931 ; Ventura County, fifteen 2-to 4-year records, obtained during the period 1928 to 1931. The records for 1932 were not available when the computations for most of the walnut tables were made. The yields for 1932, however, have been added to the records of previous years in com])uting the average yields used in preparing the frequency distribution of yields given in Table 28. In order to determine the representativeness of the sampling, over 80 per cent of the orchards, for which cost records have been used, were visited. The conclusion was reached that the records gave a very good cross-section of the going orchards. They are not, however, representative of orchards about to go out of production. Orchards in ])arts of area W2, in particular, have been heavily damaged by what the industrv knows as "die-back." 1 Changed to 50 per cent for 1933; - For general discussion of the principles which have guided the use of the cost- of-production data see Chapter I, pp. 23 to 28. -3985 66 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES < a. < Q u u a u A o < Oi cu H D Z u. r>« CA U Q ^ u 1 "a = » 1 5 t o 1 -r — oto o 5 t- •w 5^ -T r~ ^£? •• " ■•-> - '■« O !0 o>-o -3-C — moe o ■S = 1 OS I^ .0_0_ ■- 2 1 OOM MO I^OOCO O -^ -^ a « — c* -^ -^ •« *P c lO « t^ o |.2 so r^ i« »> C^ ««» : -^iC»C o OJ OsO lO ^ c csao o ;3> H a a.* a L^ o < A k. Q S. 1 ^ 11 CO O ^ I^ u so o -^ ooo 3 o -*■ wr -"T CO o 0) t7 «» u- OJ bc E k. > w. -< -^-^J'M lO T3 o 00 ^ coco s -o C5CO •* »0 'u c^^ c^ cj c^ CO E 3 „ O) "cS ^^^t^ CO 'C — — -^-^ CO ^ coco CM ^^ 5 •» ^ Oi^ — c^ "a ^« ^ _ t _4 o 00 ^oo ^ t^ iC "^ :D o -O ec « 03 o k. bc o ea ^ £2 a; o CM CCC^ CO > CJ •- >. <- o X « u Sf fe «COCOM eo — oaos > « ^CMCMiO < t a «M ° V. 1^ oo — c^eo •M IC •-« y. « « CM CO •* 1 Bisiti'^ "■^ 2 d & u >1 O 4* CJ oi c-=-a c O. C B^ S o o i' T? a> n £ fc.QC< VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 67 Tabulations of Costs, Yields, and Income. Diita on costs, yields, ami iiu'omo arc proseiited in pavX in 'A tables. Table I), in the appendix, jxives the average cost of prothiction, yields, and with few exceptions, retnrns to the prrower, for each lUKrord. Table 26 <;ives the averag:e annual cost of production, yields, and income ])er acre for walnuts in each of the four areas studied. Only three records are available for area W4. While this is a very limited number to put into a separate prroup, tlie field inspection and the records, both Agrricultural Extension Service and packing house, justi- fied such a separation. Itemized costs of labor and material are pre- sented in Table 27. Costs are much lower than in the case of citrus, especially the cost for material. TABLE 27 AVERAGE AMOUNTS PAID ANNUALLY PER ACRE BY GROWERS, BY SPECIFIED AREAS, FOR THE VARIOUS ITEMS OF LABOR AND NUTERIALS USED IN THE PRODUC- TION OF WALNUTS AS SHOWN BY 84 AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE RECORDS Item .\rea' 1 (18)= 2(51) 3(12) 4(3) Labor Irrigation. . . Fertilizer . Cover crop Disease control Parasite $8 57 20 03 26 4 74 13 2 79 12 78 36 2 30 15 20 5 35 12 $7 30 05 22 29 2 61 14 31 3 11 9 06 55 18 30 05 2 35 03 26 $8 80 08 u 06 1 42 13 3 68 8 68 1 35 07 35 1 61 38 $7 69 27 51 Frost protection Bracing Pruning and brush di.'posal . Cultivation . Miscellaneous Material Fertilizer Cover crop seed - Disease control . Parasite control - Frost protection . . . Miscellaneous 75 2 07 9 77 4 30 36 78 33 ' For description of areas, see p. 65. = Figures in parentheses indicate number of records represented. The above tables present costs as reported by the Agricultural Extension Service, no deductions having been made to conform to changed prices, nor has anything been included for tree depreciation, which needs to be added to conform to the plan of determining costs of production outlined in Chapter I. In the main, the Agricultural Extension Service has computed depreciation of walnut trees as follows : "Tree values are computed from a replacement schedule based on sixty years life for an average commercial walnut orchard. The values starting at $75 the first year were appreciated $27 per year to the 12th year and then $18.75 to a maximum value of $550 per acre the 20th year. A depreciation charge of 2.5 per cent per year, or $13.75, is made from the 21st to the 60th year." ^ Some of the walnut orchards listed in the present study are under 20 years of age. If the method of depreciating trees followed by the Agricultural p]xtension Service were to be used, no allowance for 1 From : Wahlberg, H. E.. "Summary of Cost and Efficiency Analysis on Walnut Production, Orange County, 1931." (Mimeographed report.) 68 DIVISIOX OF WATER RESOURCES depreciation Avould be made for such orchards. The California Walnut r4rowers Association, however, classes trees 16 years of age as full bearing. It lias been concluded that the period during which deprecia- tion of walnut trees is to be charged can well be extended to 45 years; that is, from the 16th to the 60th years. According to the Agricultural Extension Service figures, the investment per acre in a walnut orchard at the end of the 15th year is about $430. A straight-line depreciation of this amount extending over a 45-year period results in a depreciation allowance of approxi- TABLE 28 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF YIELDS OF WALNUTS, BY SPECIFIED AREAS Figures in area columns indicate number of orchards in each yield group Range in yield. .■Vrea' Totals pounds per acre' 1 2 3 4 300- 350 1 1 1 1 7 4 6 3 3 4 4 2 1 1 350- 400 1 400- 450 1 450- 500 1 500- 550 7 550- 600 1 5 t)00- 650 6 650- 700 1 4 700- 750 3 750- 800 1 5 800- 850 4 850- 900 900- 950 1 1 1 1 1 2 950-1,000 2 3 1,000-1,050 5 2 2 6 1 050-1 100 3 1 100-1 150 3 1,150-1,200 1.200-1,250 2 2 1 5 1,250-1,300 . ... 1,300-1,350 1 2 3 1,350-1.400 1 1 1,400-1,450 1 4.50-1 500 2 3 1 500-1.550 1 4 1 5.50-1,600 1.600-1,650 1 1 2 3 1 650-1 700 1 1 700-1 750 1,750-1,800 1 I •-> 1,800-1,850 1,850-1,900 1.900-1,950 1 1 1.950-2.000 1 1 2 000- ■' 050 2 050-2 100 2 100-2 150 2,150-2,200 2 200-2 250 2 2 2 250-2 300 2,300-2,350 2,350-2.400 1 1 2 400-2 4,50 450-'' .500 2,500-2.550 •> 5,50-'' iKK) 2 60O-2 650 1 2 650-2 700 1 1 Totals 18 51 12 3 84 ' For description of areas, see p. 65. ' Lower limit inclusive. mately $10 per acre per annum. This figure has been adopted in the computations of eo.st of production of walnut.s given l)elow in Tables 29 and 30. VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 69 A frequeucy distribution of yields of wahiuts by .specified areas, as shown by 84 Ap:ricultural P^xtension Service records for tlie period 1927 to lf);}2, is presented in Table 28. The walnut yields (lutiii B-- A' B» A' B« A' B> \V-1 (18)' S92 $80 93 35 257 208 117 120 $72 $62 68 24 220 177 97 100 $52 $44 43 11 184 147 77 80 $33 $23 \V-2(49) 18 \V-3 (12) 147 116 \V-4 (3) 56 60 ' Average of middle half of the growers. - Growers of least residual income in the upper two-thirds group. (T"or discussion of this grouping, see text, page 27.) • Figures in parentheses indicate number of records. The data regarding residual income from walnut production above other costs than the cost of water are presented in tables 29, MO and 80-A. Table 29 is a frequency distribution showing the residual income above costs other than for Avater with costs of production as they averaged during the period 1927-1929,- and with average prices for all grades of marketable walnuts of 20 ■' cents a pound to the grower. Table -SO, which is also a frequency distribution, shows the residual income with costs of production reduced 25 per cent from the 1927-1929 average and with average prices for walnuts of 18, 16, 14 and 12 cents a ])0und to the grower. As in the case of Table 28, the yields used in computing these two tables include those for 1932, Table 30-A shows the residual income above other costs than the cost of water by areas with prices of 18, 16, 14, and 12 cents per pound, net to the grower. Quality, which A'aries greatly in walnuts, is reflected in price. Jn order to reduce prices received by the various growers represented in the cost-of-production studies to a common basis, the relation between the average price per pound received by each grower and the average price received by the industry as a whole during the same period was determined and expressed as a "quality percentage" ^ In collecting cost data on walnuts, the Agricultural Extension Service allowed, on the average, a price of 50 cents an hour for labor during the years 1927-1929, 45 cents during 1930, and 40 cents during 1931. 2 Production costs for citrus fruits were reduced 25 per cent from an average of 1926-1931 costs, which was a lower base than the 1927-1929 base used for walnuts. Material costs make up a large part of the citrus costs of production. This is not the case with walnuts. Costs whicli are more difficult to reduce, such as taxes, make up a proportionately larice part of the production costs of walnuts. ' The average return to the grower for all grades of marketable walnuts for the period 1928-1929 was slightly under 20 cents a pound. 72 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES factor. For example, if the average price of nuts to all of the growers over the period being considered was 20 cents a pound, and the aver- age price received by an individual grower was 16 cents, the per- centage relation in this case would be HO. This quality percentage factor was used in computing the residual income above costs other than the cost of water in tables 29, 30, and 30-A. I VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 73 CHAPTER IV DECIDUOUS FRUITS, GRAPES, FIELD CROPS, AND TRUCK CROPS GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION AND ACREAGES The g:ooi]:fai)hical distribution of the crops discussed in this chap- ter as far as they are located in Santa Ana, San Gabriel, Los Angeles, and Santa Clara River valleys and local tributary areas, is shown in a general way bj' the two colored maps accompanying this report (Plates A and B in pocket). The map of tlie south coastal basin, Mhich includes the three first- named valleys, does not differentiate between walnuts, the fruits ordi- narily classed as "deciduous" — such as apricots and peaches — and grapes, but shows the location of "garden and field crops," "alfalfa," and "irrigated grass" separately from the other crops of the basin. In the case of the map covering Santa Clara River Valley and adjacent areas in Ventura County (Ventura County Investigations), "apricots, miscellaneous trees, and grapes" are grouped together separately from walnuts, and "beans, beets, and hay," "alfalfa," and "truck and miscellaneous gardens" are each given designations. These two maps therefore present only a general picture of the irrigated-crops distribution, aside from citrus fruits and also aside from walnuts, which are designated separately on the Santa Clara River Valley map. Furthermore, they do not extend into San Diego County. The approximate acreage of these crops in the portion of the southern coastal plain covered in the present study and the loca- tions of the principal plantings are as follows:^ SUMMARY OF ACREAGES OF DECIDUOUS TREE FRUITS, GRAPES, AND FIELD AND TRUCK CROPS Deciduous Fruits Apricots Peaches. , other... Approximate total Grafiss' All varieties Forage, Grain ant) Hat Crops' Alfalfa Barley Com Other Approximate total .\rea, acres 4,400 7,800 7,300 19,500 31,100 63,800 14,000 2,300 165,800 245,900 Field Crops' Lima beans. Other beans. Sugar beets. Other Area, acres 85,600 13.000 23,100 3,600 Approximate total. Truck Crops' Potatoes.. Lettuce... Berries... Tomatoes. Other.... 125,300 9,200 4.400 3,900 6,800 40,700 Approximate total 65,000 ' Figures include areas in Los Angeles County outside of coastal plain. See discussion in text following summary. 1 The study has covered the valley and the cultivable foothills and rolling lands of Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego counties which drain into the Pacific Ocean, with the exception of tlie f(illowind. The alfalfa acreage is rather widely scattered in the six southern coastal i)lain counties, and in some of the nuiin lima bean and sugar beet areas is a rotation crop with beans and beets. In San Diego County it is found ])rincii)ally in the small interior valleys, in Riverside and San Bei-nardino counties largely along the Santa Ana River lowlands, and also in the Arlington Heights section of Rivei'side County and in tlie Chino section of San Bernardino County. !Most of the alfalfa in Orange County is in relatively small tracts west and south of Santa Ana. In Los Angeles County, as stated previously, the jirincipal part of the alfalfa acreage is outside of the coastal plain. Most of that in this county lying within the coastal ]ilain is in San Fernando Valley. In Ventura County it is chiefly in the Oxnard plain and snudler valleys leading off from it. Of the field crojis mentioned as being of nuiin imi)()rtance from the standpoint of irrigation aiid water costs, lima and other beans are clearly first and sugar beets second. The lima bean areas are all in the coastal belt — about 15,000 acres in San Diego County, ajipi-oxiiuately 28,000 acres in Ventura County, over 40,000 acres in Orange County, and over 14,000 acres in Los Angeles County. Much of the present l)ean acreage is interplanted in young orchards. The Oxnard plain of Ventura County, the southwestern portion of Orange County, and the southeastern portion of Los Angeles County raise the principal VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR reRIGATION 75 quantities of sug:ar beets. Only the truck crops with larjjest acreages are listed in the summary above. With both truck and field crops the acreajre varies from year to year. The soils best suited to truck crops are usually located near the lower ends of the alluvial fans where a water supi)ly can be developed rather chea])ly. or on the alluvial soils farther back along the main rivers. It will be seen from the statements made above that in many instances dfciduous fruits and field and truck crops are grown in areas not suited to such plantings as citrus fruits, walnuts, and avocados. There are substantial areas in the southern coastal plain whicli can be so classed. Being less affected by frost than citrus fruits, deciduous ]>lantings tend to occupy the lower areas contiguous to the citrus groves, as well as areas at an elevation too high for citrus, such as around Beaumont, Yucaipa Valley, and to a limited extent in the back country of San Diego County. Deciduous fruits are also found in areas suitable for citrus where the water supply is limited, since the seasonal requirement for deciduous fruits is less than for citrus. An example of this is the peach area in western San Bernardino County and the apricot area in Hemet Valley. Field and truck crops found in the sections of the southern coastal plain which are adapted to citrus fruits and walnuts are grown there partly as intercrops, partly as temporary crops pending extension of orchard plantings, and partly because some of these crops tend to maintain themselves against the competition of permanent plantings, since in good years the returns from them are substantial and the investment necessary for growing them is much smaller than for per- manent plantings. Furthermore, the double plantings possible in the long growing season of the southern coastal plain increase the ability of the annual crops to compete for the available land and water with oi'chards. COSTS OF PRODUCTION, YIELDS, AND INCOME Questions connected Avith the value and cost of irrigation water for deciduous fruits and field and truck crops are important and will continue to be so. because of the permanent place these crops now occupy and Avill continue to occupy in the agriculture of the southern coastal plain. The cost of providing water is, of course, not affected by the use to which it is put. Consequently, the amounts farmers are paying for water for deciduous fruits and field and truck crops in areas chiefly devoted to higher-priced products tend to be the same as for the latter. However, since the bulk of the field and truck crops are in the lower elevations, where the pumping lift is less than in the main orchard ai'eas. water costs for those crops are generally lower. Data regarding the cost of production, yields, and income for the crops discussed in this chapter are meager, but are included as tables 31, 32, and 33. The first of these tables gives the cost of production and of harvestini;', the yields, and the returns per acre for ten lima bean growers in Orange County. The next gives similar information for ten apricot orchards in Riverside County, mostly in Hemet Valley. Although this valley was not covered in the present investigation, the data are included because they furnish the only cost-of-produc- tion records for deciduous fruits that have been obtained. The 76 DmSION OF WATER RESOURCES .J 09 < 3 o Z (/) to 3 •J <^ Q II cn JO OlO 00-^ O CMt^ iC ■^ Residual income per acre above nil costs except cost of water TO 00 Oao CO CM COO 0» CM rococo to CO CM CO •• Qo as M*^00eM(3» oa 00 •• w C M M M coo ^- 1^ ooco O lO -r u? ^_J o ° b C3 c " — J3 ■- CJ 31 oo c^ i>-oo r^ t'-ro CM o t^r^ ceo M- •*?• Ci-^ CO OS to cS ■■ »0 lO IOU5 -*■ »c»c « ^O to »o la *• «» », £ OS 00 Ol^ CO t- o r^— • o •^ 2-22 CM t- c^ c^ ■^ o o t^co CO CM 00 -^ t=o t^ CM :o^- OS 00 o» S »i^ CC 1^ oo ^ •^ C^ lO lO CO *- o •» —. ^H — H ^M — ^^ *"* «» . -^ t-» -?• d \n lOOOOOf c» CM r* ro CO »0 O "T" «o to -t3^ .2 » 00 00 cs-r »-> ^ t^oooo CM CM t^ >- " ooo 0OC<3 CO r^i^ oi O ^^ 00 Is CD O I^IO — O :D CO CM t^ o CC CO U5 -r C^ CM ^ CM CO _, CO «» «• be OM 1- o 05 0SOC0CM ^^ -^ c o o CC o -^CM — — 00 C3 CO 'c cccc -H cc CMCO lOUS IC CM CO § «* «• CO O -** s u CO iC wcc ^ Oi iO o 00 r^ u> ooo := 00 o o 'int-- CS 'tf- c ^- — ^ ^ ^ ^H 1.^ CM ,_ ^^ '•3 a S's ^ 4« > fc. CS ^ — NCO to t^-'fj' o o> CO CO sl OM t-o CMOOOO t^ t^ o > o-^ — CO Cit^CiO O Ci o .— 1^ CiH CS «» «• ^ .2 c " S 1 ^ o o > « a-S -J. ^ t^o ' ■«»T' tOCOOO »o o ifi CM o o 'CO lOO o »o CO £ = 2^-9 5 0.0 C.C o-g 4» IMCO "^ CM — CO ■^ CM •• 1^00 oo ■^ OacO O O oo PI ■f- o »o OO OaOOOiOO »o CO to c» >oo so -^ --0 O O •-« 00 a «* «» ' » a> - • _' ' _ ■OS ct c^i CM 5; -^ ' c^ ^4 ^9 1 t» ' ^^ ^ ^ OSOsCM ' Oi CM 1 CM 'CM 222o ;2o2 'S :2o ^ -co . -co i ' ^. . -co oooooo^oaooo^ooooobooooo (MC-KM ^CMCM — MN'TMCMOJ ^ a Oi oi oi 03 o^ c> 93 o 3l lO « 1^ OO oa O ^ CM fc -^ r* r^t^ r^ r* oo 00 00 oooc «:■ = VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 77 I I I u ^ T) c to H Ifi O r U u ^^ H 02 V ^ > 2 © a E ce: t: o b r. Id tf a ^ g Oi ^ u ■u & a: u Q ^ ^ l: V ce: F o (A u > I>^ c H H 9> E 32 NSTO u X § •J ^ Ui 03 5 u U < H c OC ^0 J > "0 < T3 H C Q Sf. i^ c IS S Z >J U u 1-4 >^ ^ aj z (/5 o C NN o H « U if D O UJ b: to & 3 b o 12 u M < 8 4) 5^ E CO to < Q u W > < iSSg Oi u *' 2.^ w «).« "m O 5 n ^ tfi a> ki o U) a K.5 axj^ Sja S O ►4 03 'S, fe a CO O -^ O f 0> d QO QC »0 ■^•-0>030SOO> CD CD CO (O 'X> -O --0 OO OO 00 C^ C^ C» C) iM -M C^ C^ C*) Ol O 0> 05 Oi Ol Oi Oi Ol «— MffO-r»ocDr^QOOiO 78 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES n Hi CO < o >* J ^ 1. o {2 w o :?^ =3 to ". 00 «^ o S •• U. O -*3 i* H < - L- -3 S, d ■=-2 ;« » ■" o tc B M V X ■S O « bO c S> "■2 a 03 m >*» 22 » > Ph 03 ja X o E- • , -at; .2 c « £ 5 t> o > a a « _ o x B c. 5 a a-~ o --t fl CJ 3 — srr rt CJ L. SO O c c aJ CJ D. OS !« *c <=> o c o o 03 T3 5 »- Oh rt S u J OS >J 5 o E- s < — CQ • I'''- Q Z < < K OC — f-TiCO — — OC'i-^ooeC'^(M^'^«ooocr-.-oo*ooo coicooc^irctcaosc-^ — rcfcrc — r^ = »coo=^or- — — 1^ — t^ ^s a; d ■-?• i^ re — r* r^ r* :c ri oo ^* i^ OC c-i (C *c o t* 5J*^ ^ — — — — — — — — — — , ^ 1 CJ WOOO^aS-^— -OOSOt^C^OO — OOQO — 0035fOOOCOCM CO — oo-^c^cccstcr^ — orcciM-^CTJOO — «^--c^:ooo to :d o c^ • ect^co- cot- — — -f ' '00 • ' -J* « o CO -^ i^o lO CO ca • 'CO 1 ' ^ .^4 ^ 1 . II CO MP e^QOOOOkoeo 'O — CSOOM — 00 |0 Tf m »o « ec — CO 'cc coooeooocoiocooooowir^'* i-«O^--^i000Ca»0iCOO'-ie0^^ O tCSoOO— — OOONOOSOOOOCJOOSO — — *OM^ oo— o»eocococ*5eoc^t^«w*»t^caoccocr^t^eoicoo 4» h-oooootooo»ceciOO'^i^ — ociooor-osr* ooooooo — '£>oor^oO'-'Oc^oo»co — ecooocor* toci-r»ft:ct^--0^-oi:coor>-c;i'-i0oocj-.c:ccoccoooeo •> tOCOiftOOOOaiOOOOSOCOu^t^ — lOC^OOOSOSOO O — — OOSt^OSCJtO — — 00r-.« — 00Ci00-»*-OlOSC4-*N — CI — — — — ^N-^^ — — — — — — — — — — — — — CO So^o2^2S?5oi--« — ?^c5S»r-ooc4000oeoici icr^r^o- fc — "^ca-^oiMC^oowccc^oicc- — or>-^ ^-x>cc-r'*co*oci-rociro«o?o»o«o«ccc'^'^-**ecci« OC to »AiftOcOOO>'5OO00O00»'>sD»CU9I^OU0'>''»'OOO Nl?OtS2§«»S^»Kh:r- — 00 - 00 *^ ■^ o to to OO -r ^ ^ »o t'- 000C40 ^ O O lO »o Q Z < flC 00 r^ t- ■^ »o C^CI -^ -^ o O 1C0O4CCC O O O 00 o 00 »'3 lO -O »0 OO ^ OS CO 00 OS CO — OS X O e«5 00 cs cc OS C4 CI C^ C^ CM I CM oo oo o OOCM 50CM CM — IM mSS So". g J-.H ° = S>a •a „ 2 S 0) =-a X J3-H c Dr~ '- ■t? = *J O ^ CO 2 O 4J 4J O) CJ S-O 73 rt 3 S -' a> t« b. k. I. S oi > > > t. so DIVISION OF ^VATER RESOURCES third table is based on information furnished by the California Lima Bean Gi'OAvers Association and orives 24 individual costs of production and yields for lima beans on irrigated land and five on nonirrigated land in Ventura County. The income included in these tables is based on the yields given and the average net prices paid to the growers by the association. An interesting feature of Table 33 is that it gives data for both irrigated and nonirrigated land. Examination of the table will dis- close that at the average price paid to the growers bj' the association for lima beans for the period 1919-1931, the residual income above costs for the irrigated land was $40.09 and for nonirrigated land was $4.78 an acre. Table 31, relating to lima beans in Orange County, shows in the last column the residual income above costs of production and harvest- ing, not counting the cost of water. The range is from $42.38 to $126.02. averaging $83.24. The cost of water was a minor factor, ranging from only $1.67 to $5.78, averaging $3.08. A similar column is not included in Table 33 giving the one-year records furnished by the California Lima Bean Growers Association. The difference for the latter between the estimated average cost and the estimated aver- age return in 1929 was $82.99. The average cost included $9.42 for irrigation water and its application. AVhile the average residual incomes above other costs than the cost of water shown by the two tables are thus close together, the similarity is not significant because the Ventura County records are for the year 1929 only, the year of recent maximum price, whereas the Orange County records covered a 4-year period in which the average price was much less than that in 1929. The residual incomes which have been computed are only generally indicative of what may be expected. The information avail- able does not justify any extended statistical study. Although no records of costs of production and yields for sugar beets are available from individual growers, a field agent of the Amer- ican Beet Sugar Company furnished figures relating to cost of pro- duction based on experience at Lompoc, in Santa Barbara County, and the American Beet Sugar Company has furnished composite figures relating to the yield, sugar content, and gross returns in the Chino, Downey, Compton, and other districts of San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties for the years 1930, 1931, and 1932. The latter appear as Table 34. The data regarding cost of production of sugar beets at Lompoc are summarized below. It has been estinuited by Mr. J. W. Rooney, superintencj^nt of the American Beet Sugar Company at Ventura. 1h;it these costs are about ten per cent higher than in 1932. SUMMARY OF AN>aJAL COSTS OF PRODUCTION OF SUGAR BEETS BASED ON EXPERIENCE NEAR LOMPOC Item Cost per acie PlowiriK $1 60 Replowing 1 60 Planting 50 20 pounds of seed 2 40 Thinning 6 00 Cultivating five times 2 50 Irrigation 6 50 I'lowing out 1 60 Topping and loading 8 10 Hauling 7 50 Depreciation 1'70 Total $40 OO' VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 81 TABLE 34 AVERAGE ANNUAL YIELDS, SUGAR CONTENT, AND GROSS RETURNS PER ACRE FROM SUGAR BEETS IN SEVERAL DISTRICTS IN SAN BERNARDINO AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES DURING THE PERIOD 1930-1932. AS SHOWN BY A COMPOSITE RECORD OF A NUMBER OF FARMS Data from the Amer ican Beet Sugar Company Year Acreage Average yield per acre, tons Sugar content, per cent Average gross return Per ton Per acre CHINO DISTRICT 1930 - 756 1,450 1,336 13.67 11.30 13.21 15.54 12.93 16.63 $7 78 6 47 6 57 $106 35 1931 73 11 1932 86 79 Averages . _ 1.181 12.73 15.03 $6 94 $88 35 COMPTON DISTRICT 1930 476 735 453 12 84 9.22 14.14 15 73 14 10 16.40 $7 87 7 05 6 56 $101 05 1931 65 00 1932 - 92 76 Averages 555 12.07 15.41 $7 16 $86 42 DOWNEY, SUGAR, WINTERBURG DISTRICTS 1930 398 648 2,699 12.86 10.68 14.33 17 63 12 98 16 36 $8 81 6 49 6 54 $113 30 1931. 1932 69 31 93 72 Averages 1,248 12.62 15.66 $7 28 $91 87 It will be seen from the above table and from the summary of costs of production at Lompoc that the residual return to the grower from sugar beets averaged close to $50 an acre during the years 1930. 1931, and 1932. Some growers look upon sugar beets as one of the most profitable of the field crops and it is recognized as being excellent in rotation with other crops, particularly beans and alfalfa. Kotation is said to be tlie best known control for nematodes and wireworms which attack this crop. PRESENT COSTS OF IRRIGATION WATER While Chapter V of this report is devoted primarily to presenta- tion of data regarding amounts growers now pay for irrigation water for the different crops and in the different parts of the southern Cali- fornia coastal plain, it seems desirable to summarize briefly in this chapter data regarding the annual cost of water for deciduous fruits and field and truck crops. The following average annual costs of water for irrigation in areas in wliich the crops listed in the above summary are predominant are taken from tables in Chapter V of this report : -3985 82 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Location Predominant crop ( From Table 37 ) Gardena Truck Moorpark Deciduous fruits- (P^rom Table 38) Compton Miscellaneous Riverside Alfalfa and miscellaneous. Ontario Deciduous Ventura Miscellaneous Somis Beans Semis Beans (From Table- 39) Costa Mesa Field and truck (From Table 43) Somis Lima beans Average annual cost of water per acre $18 48 12 10 21 56 17 76 3 19 23 75 .$10 to 10 49 15 70 56 16 64 Tables 31 and 82 in the present chapter also give information r('g'ar(lin FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS OF IRRIGATION WATER PER ACRE TO LEMON GROWERS IN THE COASTAL PLAIN OF SOUTHERN CALI- FORNIA, 1926-1931. AS SHOWN BY 247 CALIFORNIA CITRUS LEAGUE AND AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE RECORDS OF COSTS OF PRODUCTION - Area Rjingein costs, dollar;; per acre' 1 2 3 4' 5 7 Total A B C D E 6- 8. 1 2 2 2 5 4 8 5 7 6 9 15 9 9 2 4 1 1 4 8-10 4 10-12 1 6 12-14 1 5 14-16 , 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 6 1 1 2 1 10 lt)-18 6 18-20 2 .. 3 2 2 2 2 2 6 1 1 2 1 2 1 i' 1 12 20-22 1 2 10 22-24 1 17 24-26 23 26-28 1 1 18 28-30 1 12 30-32 3 32-34 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 i' 11 34-36 3 36-38 1 5 4 2 5 1 2 3 1 1 3 2 4 1 2 1 6 4 2 5 1 7 4 2 8 5 3 7 2 3 9 38-^0 1 1 i 10 40-12 1 2 2 1 .- 6 42-44 2 3 6 44-46 10 46-48 1 5 1 1 3 1 3 48-50-_. 8 50-52 . 1 5 52-54 1 3 54-56 3 .. 1 1 1 2" 1 8 56-58...- 1 6 58-60 1 1 1 5 60-62 8 62-64 64-66. . 1 1 4 66-68....... 68-70 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 70-72 1 1 1 1 9 72-74. . . 1 74-76 3 4 76-78 1 78-80 80-82.. 1 2 1 3 1 82-84 1 3 84-86 86-88 88-90 1 1 1 2 1 90-92 1 2 1 1 Totals 19 15 90 13 61 5 19 98 18 7 247 ' Lower limit inclusive. = .\, Corona; B, Claremont, Upland, Etiwanda; C, Pomona, Ontario, Cucamonga; D, Glendora, Azusa, Duarte, Mon- rovia; E, total, area 4. Water costs for grapefruit, as shown by 34 Citrus League records, fall in line with water costs for lemons. The average water cost for grapefruit was $37.73, the range, $15.] 4 to $93.31. Information available on individual-farm water costs for crops other than citrus is not as extensive as that presented above. The Agricultural Extension Service in Orange County has been collecting cost data on avocado production since 1930. Seventeen 1- to 3-year records (1930-1932) show a range in annual Avater costs from $8.50 to $100, with an average of $46.07 (Table 41). For walnuts, eighty-four 2- to 5-year records for San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura counties are available from Table D 86 DIVISIOX OF WATER RESOURCES in the appendix. For apricots, which are fairly representative of deeiclnous frnits, nine 2- to 4-year records, mainly from Hemet and vicinity, have been obtained from the farm advisor of Riverside County. Water costs for these ranged from $10 to $19.50 an acre, averag'ino: $15.65. Ten 2- to 4-year records for lima beans were supplied by the farm adviser of Orange County, aiid 94 one-year records were collected over the 4-year period 1928 to 1931 by Zone Water Companies 1 and 2 in Ventura County.^ Most of the lima bean records from Orange County have come from the Santa Ana district, where the u.sual water cost is about $3 an acre. I'L.\TK II 900 800 TOO if) Q 600 o U LJ CE 500 b 400 cr u CD 2 300 D Z 200 K» i 1 ■CO -90 Ui .70 a. UJ O «| Q -M "* li- o UJ 1- z u Q. -»0 -CO -90 *'& a. 8 -60 3 U. O H OO Z UJ 8 UJ IT 2 UJ ja u. t ^— ' ~ <"£K J, o 00c o» a>c^ — o»o»C'£>o 00 vo la^ls ^^ ift oou: ^^ Ccocooocir>-ifto etx> C4 -r ic cs ■^C^CICJ z:z~ Ave assi men acre 8. VI ^^ «* •^ M I?" 9 CO CI t^ :0 lo C^ -^ oa loco U9 t^ lO UD •CO r* CD ^ OCi O a r^ C4 C4 -^ 'to ^ — * 1 ;= m OP t C, •» (M 1 CO , a 2 & C3 .«^ c< Ud V % — 00 occro*o 0) t^ ^ o o o> c c ico c =:c^ Sio — c t- o c 00 !2i 1- o O ^ «* '^^li^. '-2>?;zs;:^'-:2- Z Ob £i,-Sfe'SrfS£ eo Tf »0 m U5 I'S 00 CO »o CO«OM3 (^ '^ CO C> »C CI U5 -^ 00 QO t^ t~ Averai amou: of wat deliver in 193 acre-fo per ac C5 .- c^ " o 00 »c rOOOMOOO 000 OO o o CI o»o-^ .-r c oco 000 ^00 OMOOO 0000 a22 Z" 2 g "= g:.S U3 01^0 i ^- CS r^ CC »o ■ fog __^ o o 000 00:DOi:0',COOO oo»o ooeoocooooo 00 t^ — lOt^iO^- — »oo»c 00c »oc ^ o 00 oc^ o 1 ^•iR 4* " "« a u o 000 000000000 000 ■p. SJil I-. o 000 000000000 000 O ■§s^ .^ 000 .-i 000 ^M " 'S ^ OOU5 ic^-^OO— OiC 10 — «-l_ t- .— « ^H £-3 a 2 cct^ ISsfe § ut CO -- ^ 00 §a|! s §^x ^ — ' — 0*— t-»CCI-^iC-^^ — tC^ c^ ^g-ii. ^^5: M 1 1 1 1 1 ) 1 . , ta CO DQ , ,^ 1 1 t I'S'w'cS I I g 1 0) 'S'aJ'aj » ; » » » : : & > » » s „,,_^ 13 l-OtSTj I I'C •o-o-o "^ c ! c c c . ■ c COG *'"' es 1 c9 09 cS > • ^ a e« es ■S ej V a> ■ Aj ' V 0) &> ' ' 0. 4) 0) V c: u < u ' V ' ■ c woo £ ea ao a: « C3 ES CO fc-'oj'a i-"aj i-'aJ ^- ^ ^ "« "a; *- cgiS^ 3 3 3 COCOCC ^ : CQ k. b * c o 1 ea s o a a • — M _ « a g O. O w 1 1 i T3 o-^ > g ; ^ 1 • m e a a> ca ea ' rt £ ' 3^p I4 ii> u b 7^ L. Y fc. h. C l--n ^ §3^ «« -*» «» «d ■^d.^ii-t^.i;-*^-^'-^-*' a *. 5 ooc oSo^joGoOc oo< ^ 000 NOOOOOOOOO o-ra> hill OkC OaOOOO-I-OOOO ?"r »c OiOO oocJco ■^ cc •« - e t> a; c s « •"•= 1 : i 1 ' g >• 1 1 i 1 am 1 ! ■ h* 1 1 0) , 1 ' •g ^— N •angp County- Anaheim Yorba Linda. La Habra ''S ta e ' ^ i as < > 11 Pomona Glendora... Duarte Duarte North Whit West Covin San Dimas. iverside Cou Corona Riverside. . ,^ a =: VALUE AND COST OF WATER P^OR IRRIGATION 89 »/^ o -^ O — oa OS o c^ — CC O o »o rs o w -^ o CO 1 -^0»c*oc^c^ — e^ooCM — c^i r^ "^ r- »« — -^ c^ c-?u^a»'-rcs--00'^"^oo-*c^ cv cr cc r^ O :C> t^ C^— — ClCO-N«« C^CM — — — ^ « e^ 4COtOO— «o»o« ftJOO O V ft> o o n cooo-r •>ro ;.•;;«; O OC^l ■ M — -^ t^ »c 00 r^ 1^ 1 1 1 1 I v^ -T ir; ao ■ trs ao O re c^ 05 M »0 ; i i ; ; ; CT — — . — — — MM aooo(ut~ouci — c^^ — O -O 'ooOOCrOO ■ ^ o • ioo o o »o ;0 -OO^-^C^^CiC; o O • 'O o o o c^ iw .Oicr^— croo ^ o i ioo>n o — 'cc .o«o:-? = =;-^ - S5 . .toor^O) ^.:^.c^ — rt:-j— r: > -e^c^ ^^ OOOO— OOOOOCIOrc o = o = = o o o5===o======^ O = (= o = o o oo— crooc; — oo~or: o = o = o oo 5:5 = = = = ----r — = .rtrc — 1^ O O = to M C-l— — ___ ^^5^2^ — 2SSS22 c = o o c o o c = = o o o => ^■K. ^^. .-■* — ^ -"^li *■»» *"^ '^'^ ^** -^^ ^^^ '^^ -^^ C — — — — — — — — — — — — = = = =: = =: o o^— = = = ^- — • — o »o — ^^ _M_— ^M— M.Ml^-> •-■ _ >.«_ 00 O o re W5 — cc — o ^': rr — I~ ^ — • ^ — c^ 1 , M ai X .2 ■ 03 ; 'js ■ , , c» o O s> . O ' < 9 . . S S S » . » • ' fr I ; -a -a ■« T3 ; •o 1 ;-o • > B c s e . B . . c ■ ' C3 S3 C9 a i a > ' a c> » ci c c; c; ' » ' u • 1 aj uSSuiJU U' ■'« ' ■ ■ u ' ■ ■ — — — — -• — x — t: XX 73-- j£ _x J2 rt g: y. « '»'«'« '-'S~'w -i'll-l-i-l:il-^^^-^^'l ^^&^:s^^ : ;§ : : : i ii ■ 1 1 1 s . . 1 > c . ; i§ 1 I 1 • : : i ;g 1 ( i*o ' • • 1 I I I I '"O ' I l-a n ! 1 c = 3 ■a • ' a o ■A ' ^ * Z 3§i=§Si5==3§= 12S§3S3 L.U.L.L.L.k.L.|_I->-ut->- 5; S 5 ^ _^':3 ^ .ti .t^ -ti .r .tf .t: - .t^ .ti -ti S .-=; .t^ ,.»■--■ p--"-----.------'^-,.- Sxscbb:Sb ^wwwwwwwww — w>^ = = M-^0 = « = -T= = = = r^ »c lO 3i c; — QO = 0;= = = =^^ = — = «.- = = t^— O C^ O O «5 5?ir;oooo -= — = « = — "rtr^ c; *c c: rc *c oc -r ■ •-* _ _. _ -1 __-.-. 1 i : i i ; ; : ; i : ; >> t •» 1 1 1 1 1 1 c 1 1 1 1 1 ^ » 1 1 1 1 i : : : : o \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ', '• \ ^ : ; : : 2 : ' -33 s: r X X s* a c o ■■ o ■f. >■ 1 Si U c: " -^ _± ^ _ -S _ "__™ X ^ c. -a -3 c: ^ o 3 ? 25 . _ t* c E= '& "5 2 '- U 3 ■—-a c tj C>-- a=-'.S 1.2*0 9 *J es o o ^ _. I -3 " = > iT nil X «; c^ 2^> S & a o: gT;;o«? I § ?-. i a ^ " I ji > o aU o -!: x. s; 2 s'. s= a o ^ ¥ T. a a ;s o o > a 3- = 90 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES n U .J CQ < < a. <: H < O u z o: o b o z a; u H 8 w u a: O z o H < o 2 cc (M re c 5 ffC ' --r • cC tC CS ■^ iC TT »i^ 00 ' o • u5 cn»o u Cei- 05 00 ■ r* 'cm uo -r fc. -^ CC 'T^ ?0 CC ■CM 'C-J -J- ^4 ^ u 4« 3 ll V «> h a. ii OJ c« ■* -* c*3 CO CM -^f lacc U3 OS Tf t^ TT "O Cfl O 00 « l« > 00^^*-Ht^C4cOI^ ^OOi M co-^eoccto-rc* (M — -< ^i; o> to -^j* ^ !0 ec *- t CM ■* oo ceo— 'Cioo-xirc iooo CM O O C cj eg CM '^ Ift ■* oo 'If t^ ^^ Avera tota; assessm rate p 100 valu «» «» b CO 00 O CM O Oi CO CO ■^ o in «,S.- »o t^ :o »o 00 m r^ co »o •*• Ift M— g '^D ^ CO lO — fT -^ coco OCM a-3£ O-l CM •-< -^ W5 CO t- ^" 'O OJ *^ i ^l§ » -> J - CM CO-* rr o o c^ 00 oo OSiC o OS -^00 O O-^ 4* o '^■^S fe « — oo oo — ^H o ^ vera oun erd d, ai per 3- — 3 - — OM:0> -S^ (O CQ •^ a « a> V a> Q. » » » fr T3-0 -a-o la a a c c s cS 08 !« rt OJ Q» a> o> U V U S a a> Qi ^J 00 at^ 1* k, k. b. cj 0) k. "S*^ ^5 3 3 3 ^L-i^ = OJ :o CO CO E^ ^ a i*-^ « ZJ o ooo ^oo o o o — ^ CO S«2 a tm . CM 1(5 O O to — O oo Csj o o — — lO -^ oo c» -fT co'cm' :c 'g£l l«.l "* .t e 1 I o 1 i I ' ' t: ^ ? I : : 3 t o - o rs .1 c e .2? 32.= §>* « «55 gSiS -^ •/. 'aZ a: CO >• o o r as a: C9 is (5 CQ a o VALUE AND COST OF WATER KOK IKKIOATION 91 sales of water stock liave been few, so the sellinj? price can not well be used. It is {issnnied in this i-opoi-t that over the 8-year period covered, assessments aiul Avater tolls have been sufificient to take care of main- tenance, operation, and dejireeiation, ])lus interest and redemption charjrcs on ontstandinjr oblijjrations, this amount then representing the cost of water to the fai-m(>rs. A munb(M' of mutual water companies were circularized for recent information on water costs. The data obtained iii conjunction Avith tlie information in Bulletin 36 of the Division of AVater Resources, have been used in jireparing Table 38. Irrigation districts. — An irrigation district is a public corporation organized under State laws eni])owering it to issue bonds and levy and collect assessments for the purpose of providing a water supply to irrigate lands within its boundaries. The information on water costs in irrigation districts, ])resented in Table 3i), has been taken from Bulletin 21-C of the Division of Water Resources. Table 37: Publie utility water comi)anies. The percentage of irrigated acreage in southern California served by this type of organ- ization is relatively small. Average annual water costs, for the com- panies listed, varied from seven dollars per acre to a])proximately ^56, while average amounts of water delivered varied from 0.9 to 2.3 acre- feet per acre. Table 38: Mutual water companies. Acreage served, principal crop, source of water supply, number of shares of water company stock per acre, par value and market value of stock per acre, average amount of water delivered, and average annual assessments and tolls have been listed wherever the information was available. Wide ranges in cost and use of "water occur. While both the par value and market values of the stock are given, interest on the stock has not been included. Table 39 : Irrigation districts. All of the eleven districts are relatively small. While citrus and avocados are the principal crops, some of the districts serve .suburban areas. Water costs vary from $14.59 per acre at Rivera to approximately $46 at La Canada. SEGREGATION OF COSTS OF PRODUCING AND DISTRIBUTING WATER UNDER TYPICAL COMPANIES S()n)(' (juestion was raised during the investigation regarding the items that go to make up the cost of producing and distributing water under typical water companies in southei-n California. Tal)le 39- A presents such infoi'nuition for seven nuitual water companies taken from their annual report. In most of the cases the tigures are averages of the costs in 1931 and 1932. Tlio.se for the last two companies are averages for the four vears 1928 to 1931. 92 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Z o: m X H D O CO u Z < o u Ui H < ^§ z o u CO S o C z a: i M H >- < CQ OS " o u CO ■X < z a: c z < o z u Q O a a b O H to O U Z Z < < H O H oa e^ ■»IO i C c2 ^ U3 NO j o-S t^ c^ o o ►.-^ «>*r M &. o 6 J Z If (O •o -_ ^M CO kcooeo C c3 0) ^ CO CO cjdb o o r* CJ o I.- c o^ o <-t Ch O ES3 d Z c» CO — -^ O caco e9 -M -^ CO lOOCO s o e^oaoo >" CB c — <2 ao M5 **„_ « "* ® — r-to ^1 55 »c oj o cJOtO o o M CO = s o<— S E a, o 0.9 •^*-/ ■5 t- »o C^ c^ ocoo 1-2 CO t- CO oooo Ci c« CO c-l -s»oocs K'^ -^ 00^ * g5 CO e^ us r*-^ to c o o CO C« CJ S3 >»:> C) '-■ ■2C cSo 4.0 > ^ _ to 00 eatcio '.C 0) CO O U3 ^H caoo N rt CO ao « o COt--C>l es S? O !0 ca CO ca I'* oo t~ <= — o" CO — N -^^- o ^ o OON -^ o ^ §5 CO O 00 C* — CO S o M ■"* •- S ,_ -*» = £• gj «*« ;^ S a. => 25 es u |s 00 CS| oo oo — c2 (>» CO to Cac^ o a C3 vN ^ 1 s uo to t--OOCSI =^-s: oo So oo la-T — <2 to co_ 2 — 00 **_ o CO M uscoto >. g3 ro o « to — CO ■2| S o -r IN CJ **- 2 E C- o <^ ^ ^ aS !2 O to 00 0OC4 1 ll CO r^ c« oeo A ^M 2 ca CJ r^-j-o ^ <2 CO o to 00 o -r O CO S2g ; 1 '."S '• 1 k 1 1 o 1 e 1 e 1 a 1 M : 5 2 ; ■ <9 1 ** 1 Q) 1 8 : > • o e'-S I d o ■2 2« 2-5 3 all VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 93 COSTS OF WATER IN RELATION TO QUANTITIES APPLIED While in tlio present study the value and cost of water for irriga- tion are considered mainly on an acreage rather than a water-quantity basis, tables 37, 38, and 39 relatinpr to costs under ])ublic utilities, mutual water companies, and irrigation districts, include available data regarding water costs per acre-foot of water applied. The information regarding the amounts of water applied used in comput- ing the costs on an acre-foot liasis appear in the tables. Some addi- tional information of the same nature has been obtained from the Agricultural Extension Service cost-of -production records from Orange County relating to oranges, lemons, avocados, walnuts, and lima beans; from Los Angeles County relating to walnuts ; and from Zone Water Companies 1 and 2 in \'entura County for linui beans. This additional information is presented in tables 40, 41, 42, and 43. Table 40, in addition to the information on use and cost of water, includes yields, since it is thought that there may be some interest in this information. It should be kept in mind, however, that while the figures represent, with a fair degree of accuracy, the quantities of water delivered, they do not give the amount of water lost through run-off or deep percolation, and therefore do not show what was used by the crops. Average annual use of water on the avocado orchards listed in ' Table 41 varied from 8.9 to 34.5 inches. The costs per acre-foot vai'ied from about $8.30 to $44. Xinety-five yearly records are represented in Table 42. Average annual depth of irrigation varies from 6.3 to 55.7 inches, while costs l)er acre-foot varied from 75 cents to $26. The lima bean records given in Table 43 are from the Las Posas Valley in Ventura County. The water used is served from wells. Variations in average annual depths of irrigation range from 4.6 to .')4.2 inches. The water cost per acre-foot was uniform for each water companv for the vear. The cost per acre-foot in Zone Water Company Xo. 1 was $7.50; in Zone Water Company No. 2, $10.00. A large amount of information has been gathered from time to time regarding the quantities of irrigation water applied in various parts of the southern California coastal plain.^ More recently the Division of Irrigation Investigations and Practice of the University of California has been making more precise measurements of the net amounts recjuired, these studies mostly having been conducted by Professor S. H. Beckett. The studies in San Diego County were made in cooperation with Harry P. Blaney and Colin A. Taylor of the Irrigation Division, Bureau of Agricultural Engineering, United States Department of Agriculture.- Subsequent to this study Professor Beckett extended the work to Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. 1 The information from various sources is summarized in BuUetin 6 of the Divi- sion of En^neerine: and Irrigation (now Division of "Water Resources) entitled "Irrig:^tion requirements of California lands," 192S. See chiefly Table 8, pp. ll-T-lSl. 2 University of California, Agrricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 4S9, "Irri- gation water requirement studies of citrus and avocado trees in San Diego County. California, 1926 and 1927/' 1930. 94 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES u O z < a o u. Q u o < U. O w I H & w Q O < > < 1 C-l CO OS C3 l_ 11 o a W/ o -a S a o -o 0) oo >• Ci r- c<» 33 CN CO '^ ^_, e*3 OS o o CO •^ ca (2 CM OS oo o< o t^ S 05 ^ U-i O C^l & s o ^ _ « o « u cs . (=^ OS 00 C4 JS> t~ C4 Oi ""^ (M P5 (3> .£3 S ec o O o M b. t*. O o ja e^ -a 1 00 o a> < r- — -^O »0 — O C5 CO « r^ CO -^ CS »o — — 0. -^ Cfl CM CM CO CO CM o — ^00 CM C» CONGO O"**-^ CB O t^ to »ft -J- CO o — •-• — M — 1 n -- r^ — ocoo -f — CM CM CI CM •« — '^ CM to -^ — CI ICM CM ' GO c; CO r^ r^ to 00 CO 00 — 30 — CO C- ^ 00 cs r^ coco t^:o-rcot>.t^«r>.«:ooooai'-ocot^to osoooto-rr^-ru" lO CI CO c» -^ O O t£ ■^CMCOtD-t:7S^ — > > O-^OO^00l--00t0r- — U^iJ^CM^ — CMOO-fOStCO CM to CM c^i c» ^ -* CI ~ — tr> — Ti c: 00 c: --• -M — iC CM to ■^tor-rocoGOoo— ' — cioocr;t^t^tOGO:c33sCQoa> Ul O z < o ^cooo to o C! oo ' c-i oo 00 to 00 00 r* ' CO cj -r !^ o '— »o I OS to 00 CO ' CM O --0 »C tOcOtOQO^-CMCM i»C»0t--iC-r-?'O ;^-iC-HO r^ 00 CO CO -^ CO t^ 00 CI r^ 00 -T c=' t^ . OOCS OS »0 CM -*" to »o cs o — -^ ■ CO oo »c — — < ^-CM ^- .JO ■ CO CO c^ t*- > t— to CO 00 > "(f *C -^ cs eooatoco^to^ioosco O O CI to 00 ^ O to ^ 00 CM ^ oo 00 00 CI CO — • t^ t^ »o lOt^toooooor— cicoor-ftoto— 'Citooo — ooooo3r*tocsci — oto^ osooot--osocJci»C"^c»«-'-rtoc>co»ocsoooopocso:^u500totoc>r^oo r^iOtO00tOCMO00tOt^00'-''«J''rO500-»*C000tO00t^C0»O»C — ^OCMCM — '^cscsci — otor- .cooicoot^tot^»c».ooOiOi^-*oo:Dcoc:rototo---^ totooot^-— '»o»o 'OO — CMOto-*or*aooooroscsr-c*i»-o*c-^uo — cs^ oOio-rOtoO'— '-r csCioa-^^rtO-foo-rcMcs»o — — CMto — ocaot-^ictC «• C» CO — — «■ ^ — ^wc^i ^^^.«CM — — — — ^ • o^-ooc cj — = o — c^r~ -. -N ^ ) O OS !o> '< . C*J Cs» ift :C t^ O CC O'* •n* CO »o OJ o 00 — -rot'' M :0 — — ,r- • . . u^ cs cs C^ — '^ -^ . .CO — — — ^INC< OSP» OSOCl^CMt^COO^IO»*0»COS^CJ!0»OtO^^CMl-"OOOOtOh*00»Or*»000>0 .^.-.CO^- — OCM-r — CMh-OS»/350COtO»0*OCOCMtOOSOCO^-OD^»OCS!OeO ^4__C>1<- — CM oeot^ci'^oo»ctcr>-t^o»CiOtoo^-o»-'tO'— '*otooo»ooo^-r>-oofO^- tOCOSCiCOCMCO — tCOOCOCOI^OS-r— 'OOCSCO— 'tOOOCMCSClOO^- — t^:C ^•^ CO'-CO — COCt — — CM — — CMCMCMCI— CMCICO — CM'^CMCMCM — CMCM OOOSCMt»-tOCOiO«CO*-«COC- cooc^^os^ooooooo •^tOt>-CO»C*rOSCMCMO CM — ^ to 00 2§SSSSSSSr:S£S ; » •«• <0 OS I^ C^ 1^ 00 M =» t^ O ■* 1 00 00 « iC -^ r» C^ 00 CO :0 -^ 1.11 00 00 ** S?§{^fe:jg ;;;;;;;; OS = 2 = '"'-r.;;ss222'-s DC OO o Dic-r'ff — r^ooc^"^^-cOfo» 3r*uo-roo-rr^3ir-ic-rc>)i — — ro "^ — c^ — • c>i .— ■ lo oascO'*"C^^oaoc- c^ -^ CD s '-♦■ ift to r^ 00 35 O — c^ w-r »o rl * --■ -^ «« -o CO CO -r -r -^ ^r -f* -r ^ — iC lO — — *- ■^COiO'O s N<31C^««OC0 -tOCOC^rOOi 00 ooc-J3&xtciao .cor- — o— co coo>r-.f--eoiO'«'«oo — eo CO *-4 o CO oeo ■^ CO — u^ • ' ■ 00— •aOC4COCDC^iO ■ 1 ■ — CO CO— — w ■ ■ 1 00 IcO OJCOC4CJO I I I I > CD 00 t^ OO t^ CO I • ) • ■ C^l ^^ 1 1 1 t oo !t^ ;^OeD I I I I I .— .^ — o . 1 < 00 CD SI $24 70 24 09 11 01 23 09 9 10 18 93 '2105 9 02 25 66 29 80 CO OS -J" C^I t^ C^ »0 C5 ■ CO t^ C^ CO ■<»• ^ -TO — r^coO 1(0-^:00^^ c^ ocooor^o»ooiot^wC-io O00C^C^-^!MrrCt^CiOO OS $26 11 19 54 11 95 25 00 4 40 16 50 10 07 26 32 $21 95 10 33 7 14 30 70 12 07 11 00 3 94 ■ 1 00 i 1 00 ■ o . -*■ O O -^ ' 1 t ■ o 'GO r-.io»o ' ' • ,io . doo cDeo " • < .N -M ^ ... ■ V* < ■ . . co cDcoc»iO>o>« icocflcar* < r-cooi — »rtt-* !O I • ' — -^ OCl CM ' ' ' . . CD t ■ CM 1 I to oor^ !r^cst^ I I I I s — c^co-^iftcor-oooso- -CM 1 < o o ■7 I. as J3» a ^ L- o Xi c C3 o t£ Sv T3 T3 O U t. vh Q. o c Wl c: 3 u -a tm 63 «^ < ,£: 5 o ^ o e4 .a **" •«-> n c: c V >" Ctf Si o ^ v * > rt OJ H M 1- H O 7; 96 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES TABLE 41 AVERAGE DEPTHS OF WATER APPLIED AND AVERAGE COSTS OF WATER PER ACRE AND PER ACRE-FOOT FOR 17 AVOCADO ORCHARDS IN ORANGE COUNTY, 1930 TO 1932 Data from the Agricultural Extension Service cost-of-production records Average depth of irrigation, inches' Cost of water Serial No.' Per acre Per acre-foot 1930 1931 1932 1930 1931 1932 1930 1931 1932 9 10.9 18.7 14.9 10 9 32 4 14.7 15.9 18 4 18.8 $37 13 68 62 47 30 30 45 28 00 33 44 12 27 12 76 33 33 $40 88 10 21.3 18.6 8.9 34.5 27.0 10.5 22.5 21.6 34.4 30.3 $66 48 49 02 32 77 38 40 77 68 8 50 45 10 27 00 100 00 80 66 $37 45 32 68 44 18 13 35 34 52 9 71 24 05 15 00 34 88 31 94 44 04 3 20.0 $41 61 $24 97 38 09 11 33 52 5 34 5 26.7 15.9 37 87 54 31 13 68 13 17 24 41 10 32 10 37 1 27 30 4 9 26 12 8 32 2 17.0 20 71 14 62 21 27 13 7 21.6 9.7 22.8 61 59 21 05 58 50 34 22 14 26 04 15 13.5 35 25 31 33 30 79 16 9.6 48 00 30 44 60 00 6 19.3 34.3 13.2 10.9 28 4 13 2 33 83 93 48 38 96 16 30 73 80 35 22 21 03 32 70 35 42 17 94 8 31 18 17 - . 32 02 Average 20.6 22.1 17.5 $36 12 $59 71 $37 98 $24 58 $28 44 $27 02 I Cost and yield data for orchards numbered 1 to 8 are given in Table 21, p. 59. '■ The average given is that for the entire area in avocados on each farm covered by the records. VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 97 TABLE 42 AVERAGE DEPTHS OF WATER APPLIED AND AVERAGE COSTvS OF WATER PER ACRE AND PER ACRE-FOOT FOR 41 WALNUT ORCHARDS IN AREAS W-I AND W.2. 1929 TO 1932 Data from the Agricultural Extension Service cost-of-production records Serial No. 1929 Average depth of irrigation, inches' 1930 1931 1932 Cost of water Per acre 1929 1930 1931 Per acre-foot 1929 1930 1931 AREA W-1> 1 20.8 20 15 6 28.8 21.2 14 18 2 15 19 2 38 3 22 8 17 9 43.9 19.9 37.6 20 4 38 26.4 20.1 19.8 13.3 33 2 22.2 14 4 9.4 17.2 18.0 33.3 33.3 15.5 26.0 16.5 23.5 15.7 67.5 11.3 21.3 $12 22 6 75 15 75 1 80 8 66 5 28 23 25 16 97 20 60 5 86 9 14 12 03 13 46 10 40 9 5.6 22 23 16 47 9 65 $16 67 6 38 5 59 1 72 3 04 5 35 7 05 13 02 14 21 8 03 9 79 13 38 12 60 11 55 8 47 9 63 22 30 11 05 $7 05 4 05 12 12 75 4 90 4 52 15 33 13 58 12 88 1 84 4 81 8 06 3 68 6 27 3 05 13 08 5 20 4 39 $9 95 2 - . 3 87 3 15.9 28 1 9.8 12.1 18.2 "i5"59" 5 04 4 62 5 1 64 6 4 46 7 9 00 8 9 08 9 17.6 19.2 18.3 9 9 12 16 5 14.2 16.9 55 7 22.8 ■ "1225' 12 27 « "iess "2283" 25 60 9 47 10 2 89 11 3 53 12 10 36 13 5 82 14 8 40 15 4 32 16 -- 7 36 17 4 65 18 11 73 Average 24.3 22.2 19.3 $15 85 $12 23 $9 99 $6 98 $6 23 AREA W-2' 30.. 31.. 33-. 34.. 35.. 37- 40.. 41. 42. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 57. 58. 60. 61- 62. 65. 67- 68. Average. 8 6 8.7 22.8 22 6 15 8 32.9 15 4 15 1 18 14.6 19 4 8.6 29 4 40.4 39 5 33.5 27.4 25.2 17 4 26.1 12 2 21.6 6 3 10.3 31 2 26 3 20.2 19 8 18.1 22 4 13.8 25 9 18.4 21.5 13 5 25.1 27 3 22 6 11.4 21.0 25.5 24.1 24.1 13 2 20.1 $13 96 1 95 12 32 18 47 15 90 7 40 11 78 9 34 3 48 26 59 21 00 13 48 8 90 43 69 20 96 31 30 17 10 20 62 19 95 24 82 17 47 16 50 22 60 $17 37 $13 68 2 86 16 96 16 48 14 09 10 57 8 30 9 14 5 13 20 37 20 32 13 92 16 17 18 90 27 58 15 52 16 17 23 05 27 90 30 28 15 13 16 48 $16 32 $19 48 2 69 6 48 9 81 5 62 4 30 7 28 2 76 17 73 17 26 8 34 12 42 17 83 6 23 9 51 6 12 8 74 11 82 12 05 7 59 22 23 $10 30 $26 06 3 33 6 52 7 52 8 37 6 41 5 50 4 90 4 46 9 44 13 25 7 77 14 37 9 04 12 12 8 24 17 02 13 17 13 13 15 08 7 53 14 98 $10 37 ' Area W-1 includes the walnut sections of Orange County exclusive of the La Habra District. ' The average given is that for the entire area in walnuts on each farm covered by the records. • Area W-2 includes the following districts: Chino, Pomona, Puente, El Monte, West Covina, Whittier, La Habra, and Rivera. 7—3985 98 DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES TABLE 43 AVERAGE DEPTHS OF WATER APPLIED AND AVERAGE COSTS OF WATER PER ACRE AND PER ACRE-FOOT FOR 45 LIMA-BEAN FIELDS, SOMIS, VENTURA COUNTY 1928 TO 1931. DATA FROM ZONE NRJTUAL WATER COMPANIES 1 .\ND 2 Zone Water Company No. 1 Serial number Average depth of irrigation, inches' Water costs, per acre* 1928 1929 1930 1931 1928 1929 1930 1931 1 11.1 9.4 14.7 $6 94 $5 88 •> 10.2 18.5 10.4 16.0 22.5 $6 38 11 56 6 50 $10 00 14 06 9 19 o * 18.2 14 7.4 19.5 23.8 11 38 8 75 4 63 12 19 14 88 a 22.1 12.4 18.4 16.4 13 81 7 75 11 50 10 25 7 Q 23.0 12.2 14 37 7 63 31.0 24.3 45.1 44.8 19 38 15 19 28 19 28 00 in 11 21.1 21.7 13 19 19 11.9 27.7 16.4 17.6 8.3 54.2 7 44 17 31 10 25 11 00 5 19 33 88 13 56 n 40.4 43.0 25 25 26 88 Id IS 51.4 16.4 10.1 32 12 10 25 IR 30.7 15.3 26.1 38.2 5.5 26.7 19 19 9 56 16 31 23 88 3 44 16 69 6 31 17 IS 1Q 15.2 16.7 16.6 9 50 10 44 10 38 9(1 91 99 6 23.0 33.9 3 75 14 38 21 19 91 19.7 12 31 Oi 9"; 17.7 7.5 15.3 18.9 11 06 4 69 9 56 9fi 11 81 97 10.3 25.1 20.9 6 44 15 69 13 06 29 26.5 15.9 16 56 in 9 94 11 14.3 8 94 12.4 7 75 18.8 26.6 20.7 17.2 $11 76 $16 64 $12 92 $10 73 Zone Water Company No. 2 33 8.3 17.1 15 3 9.7 16 3 16.9 26.9 11.4 14.0 29 24.7 11.3 20.8 12.1 24.1 27 5 4 6 14.5 9.9 $6 91 14 24 12 74 8 08 13 58 14 08 22 41 $9 50 11 66 24 16 20 58 9 41 17 32 $10 08 20 08 22 91 $3 83 34 " 12 08 35 8 25 ^A ^7 5.6 4 66 ^R 16 9 18.6 22.8 14 08 90 15 49 21.7 10 1 10.0 18 08 8 41 8 33 19 00 ^1 A9 13.9 7.0 13.0 7.7 11 58 5 83 10 83 6 41 A.'X 44 15.0 31.1 9.9 6.7 12 50 25 90 8 25 45 5 58 14.4 16.7 17.8 13 $12 02 $13 94 $14 80 $10 82 ' The average given is that for the entire area in lima beans on each farm covered by the records. • Water charge per acre-foot. Zone Water Company No. 1, $7.50; Zone Water Company No. 2, $10. Thus far these investifjations have mainly related to citrus fruits. Trial plots Avere selocted in the various eliniatic zones Avith a view to {leterniininji; the amounts of water it is necessary to ai)ply to main- tain available moisture in the soil at all limes. ^ Records of soil mois- ture variations were kept by means of frequent soil samplinfrs and the » See footnote p. 19 for brief di.'^oiissinn of tlie principles involved. VALUE AND COST OF \VATP:R FOR IKKKJATIOX Of) water applioil to tlie orcliards was measured. Tliis procedure made it possible to secure rather definite fi*rures coiieerninp: tlie net irrifjation requirements of citrus fruits. Dill'erences in amounts and distribu- tion of rainfall and dilTerences in seasonal temperatures alter the irri- ^ration requirements and in some seasons winter irrifration is necessary to ]iroduee cover crops. It was found that the net irrigation require- ments for mature citrus groves in a "mean" year vary as between the different climatic zones approximately as shown in Table 44. TABLE 44 MEAN NET IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CITRUS FRUITS IN THE COASTAL, INTERMEDIATE, AND INTERIOR CLIMATIC ZONES OF THE SOUTHERN CALI- FORNIA COASTAL PLAIN Climatic tone .\verage irrigation requirement, inches .Approximate percentage of irrigation water required, by months May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Coastal 15 to 18.. 5 5 7 15 17 18 20 20 22 18 18 20 15 15 15 10 Intermediate 18 to 24. 10 24 to 30 10 100 DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES CHAPTER VI AEEAS AVAILABLE FOR EXTENSION OF AGRICULTURE IN THE SOUTHERN COASTAL PLAIN NATURE OF STUDY OF LANDS AND SOURCES OF DATA While the main i)urpose of this chapter will be to present an inven- tory of undeveloped agricultural lands in the areas included within this study, it \vill deal also with irrigated lands now in annual crops wliieh can be considered adapted to the growing of '"permanent" crops, es])ecially citrus. Land groupings have been made largely on a physical basis, soil, climate, and topography determining crop adapta- bility. Most of the better lands have been developed. There are, however, some areas of good land without a water suppl}' and some developed lands with only a partial supply. The citrus industry, which is the basis for the larger part of the agricultural wealth of the area under study, has been able to stand unusually high water costs relative to water costs for most plantings. Most of the water-development i^rojects have been based on water costs the owners of citrus orchards have been willing to pay. It is for this reason that particular attention has been given to a determination of the extent of the land not now planted to citrus that, from a physical })oint of view, can be considered adai)ted to tlie growing of citrus fruits. It is not held, however, that it is ecoiumiically practical or advisable that all this land be so planted. The rate at which citrus production is increasing in the United States is sufficient reason to question the extension of citrus except in areas cajnible of Avithstaiuling severe com- petition. The general profitableness of the industry during an extended period in the past has caused development of foothill areas, and boulder- strewn alluvial fans, that, from a soil point of view, are not considered 1o be of high quality. Changes in the economic status of the citrus industry may cause decided changes in land values and in the nature of new agricultural development. Detailed survevs of the agricultural lands, nuide bv the Division of Water Resources, were available for Ventura County aiul for the divi- sion classed as the "South Coastal Basin," but were not available for San Diego County. Information on the agricultural areas of that county was secured, however, from the office of the County Agricultural CommissioiuM-, from the Farm Advisor, from various Soil Surveys,' from an unpublished report by Professor S. II. Beckett,- and from a general survev nf the lands bv Hie writers. 1 Storie, Earl R., "The classification and evaluation of the soils of western San Diegfo County." University of California Agricultural Experiment Station Bulle- tin 552, June, 1933. "Reconnoissance soil survey of the San Diego Region, Cali- fornia." U. S. nept. of Akv-, Bureau of Soils. I'.llS. Office maps of the Division of Soil Tochnolopv. Universitv of California, showinp results of the detailed survey made in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture during 1929 and 1930. "Beckett, S. H.. "Economic utilization of the irrigation resources of northern San Diego County, California." (Unpublished.) VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOK IRRIGATION 101 Table 4") presents a reenrd of the erop nereaH C iO -J Q *< Z > ^, -^^ a <^-^ w U Z I/) OJ I < X Si 1 OQ W ^T- (0 CO Q _5 K_2^ -• o 5 " " 8 VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 103 other soils are rated in coiupiirisoii with tliciu. Six soil jjrades arc listed, as follows: 1— Plxcellent soils, index 80-100 2_Good soils, index (iO-SO 3— Fair soils, index 40-(i0 4 — Poor soils, index 20-40 5 — Very poor soils, index less than 20 (i — Miscellaneons nona<:'ri(*nltural materials, index 0-5 The locations of the several grades are presented in fifjiires 17, 18, ;;nd 19 in the bnlletin referred to. The ori Information from "The .Agricultural Indu.'!tr>' of San Diego County," fourth edition. Published by The San Diego California Club and the County Board of Supervisors. .\rca irrigated by private pumping plants in Fallbrook Irrigation District is included under irrigation districts. Description of Local Areas. ?Jl Cajon sftil area. — There is in the Tia Juana Valley a gross area of approximately '2r)00 ncres of grade 1 jiiid about 700 acres of grade 3 land. Large areas of bench land of poor (piality border the valley. The net irrigated area at the ])resent time does not exceed 1000 acres. VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 105 A ^ross {iroa of about TJoO acres of firadc 1 land is foiiiui in the valley and flood plain of Otay River. The present irrigated develop- ment includes about half the area of jrood lanted, mainly in lemons and truck, most of the district remains undeveloped. This has been due to a lack of Avater, to uneven topofrraphy. and to a soil that offers many problems. Some areas of ,trood soil are found in the plains land soil of this area, but in the main the soil falls in •rrade 4. The developed area around Bonita, although of a different soil type, has many of the problems common to the Chula Vista district. The agricultural commissioner of San Diejjro County reports approximately 2000 acres of citrus fruits, mainly lemons, planted in the National City. Chula Vista, Nestor, and S-sveetwater Valley districts. Lemon production has proved rather profitable in this area during: the period of hi«rh lemon prices. This has been the result of a high per- centage of summer fruit which brings ]iremium prices. The recent alluvial soils in Sweetwater Valley are rather highly developed, mainly to truck crops. Practically all of the gross area of 2300 acres of grade 1 soils is utilized. Narrow tracts of good soil are found in Paradise, Las Choyas, and South Las Choyas valleys. The large body of Redding gravelly loam and sandy loam soils which occupy a large area to the north and east of the city of San Diego are of low agricultural value — too low to justify development of a water supply for agriculture. Some 2000 acres of grades 2 and 3 soils are found in the La >\Iesa- Mt. Helix districts. A large part of the better grades of land has been developed to citrus and avocados. Bordering Sweetwater River above Sweetwater Reservoir are f'pproximately 4000 acres of grade 1 soil, and on the adjoining plains is a like acreage of grade 2 soil. A net area of 2500 acres in this valley is reported as being irrigated by pumping. Isolated tracts of fair to good soils are found around Jamul, Jamacha, Dehesa, Alpine, and Dulzura. El Cajon Valley proper includes a large area of soil which Avas classed as Placentia in the reconnoissance soil survey of 1915, but was recognized, in the detailed survey of 1930. as belonging to the IMerriam series. The surface soil is usually a sandy loam, but the refractory character of the subsoil cause it to be placed in grade 3, fair, soils. Much of the valley floor is dry-farmed to grapes. There are some 18,000 acres of this type of soil in the valley, but little of this area is irrigated. The recent alluvial soils at the rim of the valley and the deeper residual soils on the slopes have been largely ])lanted to oranges. Along San Diego River to the north of El Cajon Valley, and to the north of the city of San Diego, lie some 2000 acres of land classed as grade 1, 3000 acres as grade 2, and 1800 acres as grade 3. Table 47 shows a net area of 3000 acres in the ^Mission Valley-Santee-Lakeside district as being irrigated by pumping. In Rose and San Clemente canyons, west of La Jolla. are about 2200 acres of recent alluvial soils. The soils of the up[)er valleys are 106 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES rather coarse and subject to floods. About 500 acres, lying below tlio junction of the two streams, are of high quality'. Oceanside soil area. — Table 46, which lists the acreages in the various soil grades, shows the following acreages for the Oceanside soil area: grade 1. 20.620; grade 2, 70.810; grade 3. 56.980; total for the area 369,360. It will be recalled that this area extends from the south boundary of the Santa Margarita Kancho southward to the north line of Township 15, and from the coast to tlie mountainous area beyond Pala. Pasqual. and Poway valleys. Grade 1 soils are found maiidy in the valleys and are of recent alluvial origin. Grade 2 soils include the residual soils of the Escondido, Vista, and Fallbrook districts, and the plains soils bordering the coast. "While soils of good quality are found along the coast adjacent to the towns of Del Mar, Encinitas, Carlsbad, and Oceaii-side, together Avith a long strip south of San Onofre, much of the plains land and adjacent foothill land is of low agricultural value. A water supply has been developed for most of the good-quality soils lying between Oceanside and Del IMar. The main exception to this is an area of approximately 2000 acres of grade 2 soil lying adjacent to the coast between San Marcos and Los Monos creeks. A large acreage of undevelojied grade 2 land lies to the south of Escondido, south of San Dieguito River. Some grade 1 and grade 2 lands are also found to the north of the to^vn. A rather large block of fair-quality soil, grade 3, is found near San Marcos. Part of the land at present is dry-farmed to grapes. Vista Irrigation District includes within its boundaries 18,206 acres, mainly grade 2 soils. According to district records, 6524 acres were irrigated during 1932. Large plantings of avocados are found in this district. Approximately half of the grade 2 soil in the Oceanside .soil area is found uoi\r Fallbrook, this being the largest unit of undeveloped good soil in San Diego County. Fallbrook Irrigation District includes 10.217 acres, 1400 being irrigated, entirely by private pumping plants, during 1932. Capisfrano .toil area. — Tiiis area, whicli includes that ]')art of Orange County lying below Township (i, and Santa ^Margarita Rancho in San Diego Count}', comprises some 285,100 acres, 108.100 acres being in Orange County and 177,000 in San Diego County. Tlie land within San Diego County is grouped as follows: grade 1, 11,960 acres; grade 2, 17,720 acres; grade 3, 21,730 acres. Grade 1 soils are found along Santa Margarita, Las Pulgas, San Onofre, and San ]\Iateo rivers, the largest block being in the valleys of the last two sti-eams. These valleys ;ire well suited to the growing of truck and field crops. The soils near the upper ends of the alluvial fans are coarse and subject to flood. For this reason they have been jilaced in grade 3. About 6000 acres of grade 2 soils occur to the west of Fallbrook, A\hile a block of similnr (|unlity and of iicnrly e(pial size is found in the vicinity of Deluz. Grade 2 soils here, as in oilier |);ir1s of San Diego County which have been (Icscribcd, scciii well adapted to the growing of .subtropical (•I'ops. VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 107 The long, narrow strip of grade 2 soil lying along the coast sonth of San Onofre comprises abont 2000 acres. It is now dry-fanned to beans. Two large blocks of grade '.] soils, totaling al)oiit !).")()() acres, occupy the elevated plains about 12 miles northeast of San Onofre. An estimate of the irrigated acreage in that part of Orange County which is included in the Capistrano soil area is not available. The grade 1 soils, however, are rather highly developed, and the grade 2 soils around Capistrano have a considerable acreage of citrus plantings. Grade 1 soils are found along San Juan, Trabuca, and Aliso creeks. Grade 2 soils occupy the sides of the lower river valle.ys and to some extent the bench lands along the coast south of Laguna Beach. Summary of Agricultural Lands. Using the percentage previously mentioned to estimate the net irrigable acreage in the various soil grades, viz. : 90 for grade 1, 85 for grade 2. and 80 for grade 3, the folloAving approximate acreages are secured for the western half of San Diego and that portion of Orange County south of the Santa Ana River drainage basin: grade 1, 62,500; grade 2. 91,700 ; grade 3, 98,500. Of these areas, 10.800 acres of grade 1, 8100 acres of grade 2. and 3600 acres of grade 3 are in Orange County. To summarize the agricultural land situation in the western half of San Diego County and that part of southwestern Orange County which is outside the drainage of Santa Ana River, it can be said that approximately 60 per cent of the total land surface has soils of little or no agricultural value, as far as irrigated crops are concerned. AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN THE SOUTH COASTAL BASIN It will be to the convenience of the reader if he will refer to the crop survey map, in the envelope at the back of the report, while reading the description of the physical characteristics of the unirri- gated portions of the South Coastal Basin. (Plate A.) Description of Local Areas. Near the lower right-hand corner of the map is shown an area of approximately 20.000 acres of unirrigated, undeveloped plains and valley lands extending between Corona and Lake Elsinore. Climati- cally, most of the district is adapted to the growing of citrus fruits. However, the irregular contour and the rocky soils limit the potential net agricultural area to not more than one-third of the gross acreage reported. Bordering the citrus plantings to the south of the city of Corona is a fringe of land of approximately 5000 acres, which from a climatic, soil, and relief point of view can be considered adapted to citrus pro- duction. The elevated position of much of the land, however, might prevent the delivery of irrigation water at a reasonable cost. Forty-five hundred acres of undeveloped foothill land are shown along the hills to the east of Riverside. Some of those lands have had citrus plantijigs on them, but are now bare. 108 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Extensive areas of imirrip:ated valley and plains land extend alon? Santa Ana River from near Colton to the canyon southeast of Chino. This section is not g-enerally considered adapted to citrus. ]\Iuch of the area is dry-farmed to jrrain. With the exception of the coarse- textured, low-lyinfr soil ty]>es, most of the recent alluvial soils ar.' adapted to the p:roAvin-. Tliei-e is no apparent reason to expect the character of developmeut there to cliau're from that found at present. Near the mouth of San T^imas Canyon is a horseshoe-shaped body of unirriii-ated hnul of approximati'ly 1000 acres. With a water supply this would po into the potential citrus area. A larVna has remained fallow even though the pumping heads are not high. Since the area is spotted with alkali, the cropped areas are discontinu- ous. The soils are. in the main, coarse-textured and of recent alluvial origin. With drainage and reclanuition much of this soil could be developed to deep-rooted crops. However, the fact that these large acreages have remained undeveloped would seem to indicate that their owners have considered the reclamation to be un]irofitable under the conditions that have prevailed. The land situation in the San Gabriel plain is not uidike that of the Santa Ana plain ; that is , the soils are spotted and there are numerous uncultivated areas. Only field and truck crojis are grown in the lower portion of this plain. As in the ease with production-cost and yield records, San Fer- nando Valley has not been included in this discussion. Summary of Agricultural Lands. Table 48 presents an inventory of undeveloped plains and valle.v lands in the South Coastal Basin. AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN A PORTION OF VENTURA COUNTY In the discussion which follows concerning agricultural lands in Ventura County, reference is made to the cro|) nutp in the envelope at the back of this report. (Plate B.) * Soil survey of the Anaheim area, California, U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bureau of Soils, 1919. 110 DI\7SI0N OF WATER RESOURCES OQ IM : o Si 1 000 00 00 ccodod t^ c*eflc^ s KS-3 1 000 •o2 oKas CO 00 — MU5U5 ec cc r- « u — ~ CS B S 000 ■S"o5 pproxim Iicreage nagricul lands (large acreage only) ' eceoM 00 —■^o oc < § 000 t^CO n ^^•^J" C4 00 •*0-H •lOI •^ H ! lo 53 . .0 b ' "^ GJ C 1 1 ^'^ »o 0:a ■«• •»!< "^■o 1 1 "^ 1-1 li loo . ,b-o_ t- bc I lOM t-^ C3 "3 > 1 » O < c 3 s J lo '• • . . 1 § V M) '"<• 1 -^ C . <^ . t^ C3 It 000 000 OI 000 CO ^tnuS Jl TTOO CO •-1 -j: C9 V h4 < 1 Valley ... lin Valley .£^ « CO 1 H CSC <-i o o eS C » E E 3 C. .S-O as ^^' •a c. " c a w O e9 •^ o 200 Sf'c? 88 J.I VALUE AND COST OK WATER FOU IKKKiATION 111 Sailtil (M;ii-;i Ivivrr \';iMi'y iiiul tlir (>\ii;il-(l phiiii (fXtciKlillf; into Pleasant Valley as i'ar east as IJ. IS. llifihway 101) iiichule about 70 j)er cent of the aiirieultural land of Ventura County. L'raetically all of the hijiliMiuality land in these areas is under crop and beinp irrifj:ated. Any extension of the irrijfated acreage Mill have to inehule the foothill slopes wliieli are now nuiinly dry-fanned to lima beans. Las Posas, ISinii. Pleasant. Santa Ko.sa, and Conejo valle\s lie to the south of Santa Clara Kiver Valley. In j^eneral, agricultural develop- ment has not been as complete in tlies(> valleys as in Santa Clara River Valley, due mainly to restricted water supplies, and to a higher per- centage of soils of low agricultural value. The areas indicated on the Ventura County crop map as habitable foothill areas do not represent conditions comparable with those from which the data on co.st and yields have been presented in Chapters II rnd III. The topography and character of soil i)lace them on a lower basis. Description of Local Areas. In Santa Clara River Valley most of the high-quality lands have been planted to orchards, mainly walnuts and citrus. A large acreage, now planted to irrigated annual crops, could be utilized for citrus or ^\ alnuts. The unirrigated areas are found near the river or adjacent to the hills. The land near the river is classed as riverwash or coarse sand, both of Ioav agricultural value. The lands lying above the main irrigated areas have older soils. Vov this reason the subsoils have a tendency to be dense, and. therefore, tend to be less desirable. The Oxnard plain is intensively used at the present time in the production of field crops. These extend well out toward the coast line, with the exception of the extreme southern part. Natural drainage is restricted on the low-lying areas. This has resulted in a considerable area becoming alkaline. Artificial drainage has, however, resulted in the reclamation of some of these lands. Practically all of the lands lying north of Hueneme Road, with the exception of the very light soils along the highway to the east of El Rio and the large block of Dublin soils along Pleasant Valley Road, generally considered potential citrus lands. The area adapted to walnuts would ])robably be more restricted owing to the deeper-rooting habits of the walnut tree. The high-quality recent alluvial soils in the floor of Pleasant Valley are practically all under irrigation. The rimland soils that are not irrigated belong mainly to the Rincon series. A large part of the irrigated bean land in this valley would no doubt be capable of produc- ing citrus on a basis comparable with groves in area 14 (see appendix, p. 152). Beans and walnuts make uj) a large jiercentage of the irrigated crops in Las Posas Valley. Citrus is found mainly near the foot of the liills. Some plantings extend onto the hills. Large blocks of unde- veloped, elevated plains land are found to the north of Los Angeles Avenue, from Somis to near ]\Ioori)ark. Most of the recent alluvial soils would be capable of producing walnut or orange crops that would be comparable with the yield data given for the intermediate climatic zone of Ventura County. This can not be said of most of the unde- veloped land Iving between the alluvial soils and the base of the foot- hills. ]12 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES The spc'.tion around Ei)\vf)rtli. north of Moorpark, has some j^ood soils bordering: the stream channels. The lar With the exception of a portion of the area north of Moorpark (included in column 5), hill lands are omitted because not considered "irrigable" according to conservative staiidarils of development. ' Approximate acreage not now irrigated, but which would seem to tK- capable of standing a water charge comparable with the average represented in the cost-of-production data in ('hapters II, III, and IV. ' Areas which might be developed under favorable conditions, but which do not have as favorable physical conditions as the bulk of the present irrigated lands. ' Figures in this column have been obtained by taking 85 per cent of the gross acreage in column 4. This is based on the assumption that, even under full development, about 15 per cent of the land will not be irrigated. ' Owing to ground water and alkali conditions in the lower part of the plains area, a detailed soil survey would be necessary for accurately determining the limits of agricultural laud. VALUE AND COST OK WATER FOR IRRIOATION ^^n Table 50, wiiich concludes tin- piiscnt chapter, suiumari/.es the aereafit's iivailable for the (>xtensioii of a46,000 Coastal and intermediate South Coastal Basin (Exc usive of San Fernando Vallev) --- Mainly interior and intermediate Ventura County (Santa Clara River Valley, and plains and valleys to south and west) Mainly coastal and intermediate Totals 470,000 169,000 ' 85 per cent of gross area of agricultural land suitable for development according to conservative standards. ' "Available" means with soil, topography, and climatic conditions comparable with those in the present developed citrus areas. • Mainly grade 2 lands. * Includes about 6,000 acres now planted to annual crops. ' Includes about 30,000 acres now planted to annual crops. 8 — 3985 114 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES CHAPTER VTT CONSIDERATIONS WHICH GOVERN EXPENDITURES FOR IRRIGATION WATER IN THE COASTAL PLAIN OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA The previous chapters of this report have been devoted to a discus- sion of factors which enter into the value and cost of water for irriga- tion in the coastal ])lain of southern California, to a presentation of data reirardinjr farm costs and income, and to a summarization of available information rolatin TJ. S. EVepartment of .\BricuIture Farmers' "Bulletin 15SS, pp. 41 and 44. - Storle, R. Earl, An index for rating the agricultural value of soils. Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 55G. VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 117 lionu's" of one oi- two acnvs oi" less wliich ;ir<' iiUToasinu: in mmibers uonv tlie lartrer population conters and are occupied mainly In- indust- rial or other city work'crs; tlio "small farms'' of 2 or .'} to f) or G acres which arc i)artly farms and partly homes jiiid are scattered widely over the southern coastal plain ;^ and the holdinaid in commercial holdings. However, the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce reports that water costs are usually "quite high"' on small subdivisions. 118 DIVISIOX OF WATER RESOURCES ordinarily done on contract, because it is not economical for the owner of a small tract to own the heavy equipment needed for these opera- tions. Harvesting the crop is done by the marketing associations. "With this small opportunity to earn wages on his own farm, the owner must save sufficient out of his net income to meet his family requirements. It therefore .seems clear that the farmer who is solely dependent on a 10-acre citrus grove in southern California is vitally concerned with the amount ho must pay for irrigation water, and that he will have loss available for water than the owner of a larger commer- cial planting will have. Taxes in Relation to the Value of Water. Taxes are one of the laruor items in the cost of ]iroducing the orchard crops in southern California, ranking along with the cost of Avater for irrigation and not infroquently exceeding it. Reduced to averages for the separate areas treated, the taxes on the orange and lemon groves included in the study range from $12.97 to $34.63 an acre. Eliminating the two areas showing lowest average taxes, the range is from $22.86 to $34.63. These were the amounts paid during the period covered by the records, without reduction to anticipated lower figures. In the case of 97 out of 879 individual orange and lemon records, average taxes exceeded $35 an acre; in the case of 13. they exceeded $50; in a few instances, they approached $100. A frequency distribu- tion of the entire 879 records, without division into area.s, gives a defi- nite modal group at $20 to $25 an acre. Taxes on walnuts have been slightly lower, tlie range of averages for the four walnut areas being $11 to $29, and the modal figure $20 an acre. ]Many of the orchards in southern California are situated within the limits of incorporated cities, necessitating the payment of both city and comity taxes. In general, as might be expected, the taxes reach liiglier figures in the more fully developed and more poyiulous sections, this being esjiecially true where the city boundaries exteiul well out into tile orchard areas. While the extreme range in taxes in the citrus and walnut districts is wide, both within and between tiie different areas, it is not apparent that as between the areas the differences are on the whole significant in relation to net farm income, as sliow n by the records. However, these differences are significant when comparison is made ])etween what it is worth while for farmers to pay for water in some local sections and in others, especially, of course, where and when tlie margin of income above costs is relatively low. Furthermore, the taxes are sufficiently high in some of the incorporated areas to em]>luisize the 7iee;l of giving tbcm very careful consideration when reachinir conclusions as to the amounts it is worth while to spend for additional water supplies. As might be expected, taxes in the deciduous fruit and the field and truck crop areas are substantially lower than in the citrus and walnut areas. Tables 31, 32 and 33 in Chaptei- IV bring this out. Ten apricot records from Riverside County show a range in taxes of $8.34 to $13.29 an acre, averaging $10.35. Ten lima bean records fi-oni Orange County show a rang(^ from $5 to $11.58. with an average (if $S.:{2. For 17 liina-b(»an growers in Ventni-a County the range was from $6.5(i to $19. S6. averaging $17.()(), the land being irrigated. Three VALUE AND COST OP^ WATER FOR IRRKMTION 11!) lima-bean records from llif same district for nonirri^'atcd land show a ran«:c in taxes paid of 7") cents to $(i.}K) an acre. Tlie averajie of $l().:{r) an acre on tlie apricot land in Kivt-jside Connty is probably repi-eseiitativc of taxes on deciduous orchards. The hien oranges and lemons Avill be ignored in the present study, except as they have to do with environmental factors. Variations in yields. The question previously raised regarding yields was whether differences are due primarily to environmental conditions, or whether it is to be expected that the yields of different products or varieties will in the main tend to equalize as cultural prac- tices improve. The answer to this question seems to be that, while improvement in cultural practices will aid in narrowing the range in yields covering the bulk of the groves in any one area, environmental factors Avill in the long run affect yields and quality significantly with reference to the amount it is worth while to pay for Avater.^ While environmental factors stand out as apparently being mainly resjionsible for differences in yields, and while conclusions reached in the field as to probal)le differences are in substantial measure confirmed by the records, the environmental factors wliieh influence yields are so numerous, and sometimes so intricately related, that grouping the areas of the southern coastal i)lain for yields on the basis of any single environmental factor is warranted only in a broad way. Furthermore, although the records presented in this report show suf^cient differences to permit some grouping of areas on tlie basis of yields, records covering a longer period of years than those used have covered would be necessary to justify a general grouping on tliis basis for the purpose of measuring the value of irrigation water. However, water must have a higher value in areas of large yields than in areas of small yields, "yields" as here used taking into consideration market- ability as well as quantity. Therefore, in the final conclusions in this re|)ort with reference to consi(h'rations governing exjxMKlitnre for ii-ri- gation water, such importance \\\\\ be attributed to differences due to enviroinncjital conditions as the data assembled seem to warrant. Anothei- factor n^lating to yiehls which needs miMition is the program to curtail siiipnients for the j)urpose ot" increasing prices. To Ihe extent that this program is carried through, the yields to be used in c()m|)uting income will be tho.se marketed, rather than those iiroduced. There has not siM'nied to l)e any practical method of taking this factor into consideration in the present study, although, as indicated, it can not properly be overlooked if the program is effectively adopted. 'It is, of (•(Hii'Sf. possililf that iTiipi in most of the areas, either to the jxi'ower of averajje residual income or to the jrrower with the h^ast residual inecuue in the upper two-thirds group, at an f.o.i). jvrice for oraupes as low as $1.75 a packed box. At $2 a packed box, all of tlie areas show a residual income to the *ri"ower of averag'e income and all but one to the grower of least income in the u])per two-thirds group. In some of the areas the residual income is substantial at $2.25 a i^acked box. and at $2.75 a packed box the minimum residual income shown is $150 an acre. This range is considered sufficient for anal.\ zing the data relating to oranges. With an f.o.b. price of $2.75, ]n'odnction costs probably would be higher than shown in the table because with a higher prospective income, more would likely to be spent in cultural operations. AVith an f.o.b. price of $1.75, costs would need to go lower if even present charges for water, with nothing for interest, were to be met. For lemons the f.o.b. prices assumed in the analvsis are $2.50, $2.75, $3, $3.25. and $3.50 a packed box (Table 19). The i)rices assumed for walnuts are 18, 16, 14, and 12 cents a pound to the grower, which is 10, 20, 30, and 40 per cent below the 1927-1929 average for all grades (Table 30a). Those desiring to determine residual income available for water after paying other costs plus interest on the land on the basis of different prices can readily do so from the data presented in Chapters TI and III. In the analysis given below, only the residual income received by the average grower in the middle half of the growers is used, although in the case of all three of the principal products covered — oranges, lemons, and walnuts — the residual income to growers of least income in the upper two-thirds group of growers has been included in the tables shoAving residual income. Residual Income "Available" for Water With Assumed Land Values. Three orange areas, three lemon areas, and two wahuit areas have been chosen for illustrating the amount of residual income available for water under assumed values for developed land. These areas are considered to be most fully representative of conditions in the citrus and walnut areas of the southern coastal plain as a whole. With two exceptions the largest number of records are available for these areas. While for several of the other areas the number of records assembled is not sufficient to give assurance that they fully repi-esent the full range of conditions in such areas; in most of the areas the number that has been gathered is large enough to furnish a satisfactory basis for separate consideration. Oranges. Table 51 presents data for orange areas 3, 7, and 10. 1 This is equivalent to a range of 70 cents to $2.20 a packed box to the grower, since the average cost of picking, hauHng, packing, and marketing used in computing this table is 80 cents a packed box. 126 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Area 3 covers the Tiistin, Santa Ana, and Orange districts of Oranfre County. It is representative of the coastal climatic zone, and is mainly in Valencias. The soils are in the main deep, fertile, and of smooth topography. Frost and wind hazards are moderate. Holdings are most usually of about 10 to 15 acres, which is typical of the well develoi)ed orange districts in the vicinity of important population centers. Bare and developed land values are relatively high, as are also taxes. Area 7 covers the Redlands, Brj-n Mawr, Grafton, Mentone, and Highlands districts of San Bernardino County. This is an interior belt, with navels predominating. Both flat lands and uplands are represented, the former with recent alluvial soils, the latter with mainly the older red soils. Neither the highest nor the lowest producing sections are included. "Windbreaks are not common, but over half of the area has heating equipment. Taxes are about average. Neither the highest nor the lowest land valuations in the interior zone are applied to this area. The trend is toward increased size of farm holdings, with 20 acres a typical unit. Area 10 is the largest one set up in tlie study. Besides the Corona section it includes the foothill districts extending from Etiwanda, in San Bernardino County, through to ]\Ionrovia, in Los Angeles County ; also the- valley areas of Cucamonga, Ontario, and Pomona. All of these districts are in the intermediate climatic zone, and the soils are predominantly of recent alluvial origin. Frost conditions are average for the better citrus areas. Wind damage ordinarily is not serious, but is a problem in the vicinity of Etiwanda. Taxes are a little above the average. Holdings of 10 acres are common, although there are many of smaller size and many much larger — frequently from 50 to 100 acres or more. Values cover the usual range in the better citrus dis- tricts, with a relatively high percentage in the \ipper part of the range owing to so much of the area's being in a very favorable climatic environment. "While it is not desired to consider specificall}' the influence of residential attractiveness, the residential values in the foothill areas can not be entirely disassociated from the productive values. TABLE 51 COMPUTED AVERAGE RESIDUAL INCOME FROM ORANGE PRODUCTION "AVAIL- ABLE"' FOR WATER WITH OTHER COSTS OF PRODUCTION ADJUSTED TO ASSUMED PRICE LEVELS, WITH ASSUMED VALUES FOR DEVELOPED ORCHARDS, AND WITH F.O.B. PRICES FOR ORANGES RANGING FROM $1.75 TO $2.75 A PACKED BOX' Orange area NuinVjer of records Average yield, packed boxes per acre* Assumed average values for developed orchards per acre' Computed average residual income (or deficiency) over all costs of pralucing oranges other than the cost of water, and over interest at ti' per cent on assumed land \'alues, with si>ecified f.o.b. prices for oranges Present average annual cost of water per acre $L75 $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 3 7 10 67 88 185 211 237 213 $2,500 2,000 1,500 -$146 —109 —104 —$96 —52 -50 -$45 5 4 $6 63 55 $57 121 112 $18 05 24 87 37 52 ' "Available," but not necessarily to be allocated to water. = The average prices received by the growers are of course less than the f. o. b. prices, since the local exchanges deduct the cost of packing andfniarketing. ' Vor basis of assuming values, see text, page 124. •This rate is taken because it is the one customarily expected by the growers. VALUE AND COST OF WATKK lOIJ IRKIOATION 127 Lemons. The illustration for lemons is prcscntctl in Table 52. The three lemon .ireas chosen are L-2. Ii-3. and Ij-4. This selection eliminates the one in which costs of |)ro(luction are lowest and the two in which they are hijrhest. The districts covered are mainly in the intermediate climatic zone, in whicli most of the lemons are <;rown at the present time. Area L-2 covers tlie princijjai San Die^'o County citrus districts, exceptinp: Chula Vista and National City; that is. El Cajon, Escon- dido, Vista, and Fallbrook. Averaj;e yields are fourth from the hifjhest in the six lemon areas, a hijrh percentajye of summer fruit being a feature. Only Id records are included. Area L-3 covers the lemon districts of Oranfre County, tojjether with the Whittier district in Los Anpreles County, mainly in the coastal climatic zone. The lemon plantings are around the ujiper rim of the coastal plain. Tlie average yields for the 90 records are comparable with lemon yields in the large intermediate-zone orange areas of Los Angeles County. Area L-4, with 98 records, is a distinctly favorable lemon area, with average costs third from the hight\st and average yields slightly under the highest. This area is within orange area 10. The records come mainly from the Corona, Etiwanda, Alta Loma, Uplands, and Claremont districts. Average taxes are the highest of the six areas, but practically the same as in lemon area L-3. TABLE 52 COMPUTED AVER.AGE RESIDUAL INCOME FROM LEMON PRODUCTION "AVAIL- ABLE"' FOR WATER WITH OTHER COSTS OF PRODUCTION ADJUSTED TO ASSUMED PRICE LEVELS, WITH ASSUMED VALUES FOR DEVELOPED ORCHARDS, AND WITH FOB. PRICES FOR LEMONS RANGING FROM S2.50 TO $3.50 A PACKED BOX' Lemon area Number of records .\verage yield, packed boxes per acre' Assumed average values for developed orchards per acre' Computed average residual income (or deficiency) over all costs of producing lemons other than the cost of water, and over interest at 6" per cent on assumed land values, with specified f.o.b. prices for lemons Present average annual cost of $2.50 $2.75 $3.00 $3.25 $3.50 water per acre L-2 L-3 L-4 15 90 98 170 135 238 11,200 1.400 2.000 -$79 -108 —72 -$39 —72 —20 $0 -30 40 $39 1 79 $78 38 158 $23 93 22 24 49 82 ' ".^.vailable." but not necessarily to be allocated to water. i i u j ' The average prices reeived by the growers are of co rse less than the t. o. b. prites, smce the local exchanges de- duct the cost of I ackiog and marketing. •For basis of assuming values, see text, page 124. • This rate is taken be«tuse it is the one customarily expected by the growers. Wahiuts.— {Ta}Ae 53.) The two walnut areas used for an illus- tration are W-2 and W-3, which have the lowest and higliest average yield shown by the records, and which well illustrate the range in profitableness in the southern California walnut industry. Area W-2 embraces the Chino, Pomona, Puente, We.st Covina, El Monte, Whittier, La Habra, and Rivera walnut districts. Chino is in western San Bernardino County, La Habra is in the northwestern cor- ner of Orange County, and the other districts are in southeastern Los Angeles County. Tlie soils in these districts are deep, well drained, and in the main of medium texture. The districts farthest from the 128 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES coast have summer temperatures sufficiently high to affect (juality nrlversoly. Area W-3 covers tlie intermediate and coastal districts of Ventura County ; that is, the Santa Paula, Saticoy, Ventura, and Santa Rosa Valley districts. Most of the records are from Santa Paula and Ven- tura. This is a hitrli-yield and a hieh-fiuality area, and shows the highest average total returns to the growers, ])ut not the highest costs. Average costs, however, are not significantly different in areas 'W-2, W-3, and W-4, but average about $20 an acre less than in area AV-1. TABLE 53 CO.MPUTED AVERAGE RESIDUAL INCOME FROM WALNUT PRODUCTION "AVAIL- ABLE"' FOR W.\TER WITH OTHER COSTS OF PRODUCTION ADJUSTED TO ASSUMED PRICE LEVELS, WITH ASSU.MED VALUES FOR DEVELOPED ORCHARDS, AND WITH DIFFERENT NET AVERAGE PRICES TO THE GROWERS FOR WALNUTS Walnut area Number of records Average yield per acre, pounds .■\ssumed average values for developed orchards peracre' Computed average residual income (or deficiency) over all costs of producing walnuts other than the cost of water, and over interest at 6' per cent on assumed land values, with net prices to the growers for walnuts of 18, 16, 14 and 12 cents a pound 1 10, 20, 30 and 40 per cent below the 1927-1929 average for all grades) Present average annual cost of water per acre 18 cents 16 cents 14 cents 12 cents W-2 W-3 51 12 736 1.689 $900 1,500 $39 167 $14 130 —$11 94 -$36 57 $12 83 14 32 ' "Available." but not necessarily to be allocated to water. 'For basis of assuming values, see text, page 124. ' This rate is taken because it is the one customarily expected by the growers. Conclusions Regarding the Relation of Residual Income from Citrus Fruits and Walnuts to Charges for Irrigation Water. The i)rereding discussion and tables relating to residual income ■"available" for water after meeting all costs of producing citrus fruits and walnuts other than the cost of water, and after allowing for interest on tlie value of developed orchards, lead up to the following con- clusions: 1. The cost-of-produciion, yield, and income approach furnishes a reasonably roIial)le l)asis for detennining the facts, on the production side, which are needed to bring out what it is to the advantage of farmers to pay for irrigation water. The data jiresented reflect within reasonable limits of accuracy the amounts of the residual income that may be expected from the production of the principal crops of the southern coastal plain under the varying physical conditions that exist there, and with the unit prices for labor and materials assumed in the present study. ^ Ilowi^ver. the amounts of the residual income shown by the tables are considered slightl\" conservative on tlie farmers' side: that is, they are probably slightly less than the amounts actually received, since the services of the farmors, which are included in the costs of production, are in some instances charged for at a rate some- what higlier than jiaid for labor hired. - ' For discussion, see Chapter I, page 26. = See discussion in Chapter I, pape 2."?. VALUE AND COST OP WATER FOR IRRIGATION 120 111 ;ii»[)lyiim' tlif (hita rt'hitin^ 1o rcsidiuil iiKM.nic "aviiiljililc" ' Tor water, it is ossoutial that tlio ditforcnt physical conditions, as far as they affect residual income si^niiticantly, he ffiven consideration, ('oni- bining data from areas which arc sifjnificantly different will lead to questionable conclusions. "i. While "wlial it is to the advaiitauc of fanners to pax" is a hasic consideration in iiieasiirinj; the value of ii-rifration water and therefore in deterniinintr the jirice that will, it' necessary, be paitl for it. it is the belief of the writers that the present report should also indicate the amount that can be paid for water and still leave farmers surticient income above costs, includiim' depreciation, to cover interest on the going value of their land and such profits, or "labor income," as are commensurate with the particular type of farming involved. It is believed that the data presented in Chapters II and III relating to residual income above other costs than the cost of water do tiiis for I'itrus fruits and walnuts, when considered in connection with reason- able valuations for land and the price outlook for these products. However, in the practical application of the data, either to the matter of fixing rates to be charu'ed for irriiiation water by public utilities or other agencies bavins- water to sell, or in reaching conclusions as to how much individual farmers or comnumity irrigation companies, or irrigation districts, can pay for water under any given assumptions as to rate of return, land valuations, and prices for the products, costs of production are to some degree susceptible to an adjustment to prices received and that the limitations met with in assemblino; costs of pro- duction make them reasonable approximations rather than exact costs. Furthci'more, year-to-year fluctuations in prices received, when multiplied by yields, frequently exceed the amounts paid for Avater. so that attempts at refinement in estimating the amounts that will be "available" in the future to pay for irrigation water may be misleading. The illustrations presented in Tables 51, 52, and 53 show that, even Avith the residual income above other costs than the cost of Avatcr deter- mined, the practical interpretation of the data still presents some difficulties because of the wide range of a.ssuraptions possible with reference to land valuations and rates of return on the investment. For instance. Table 51, relating to oranges, and 52. relating to lemons, indicate that at an f.o.b. price of $1.75 a packed box for oranges and $2.75 to $3 a packed box for lemons, the grower with aver- age residual income in the areas cited can not earn interest at the going rate on valuations which it is not unusual for farmers to claim for their orchards, even if nothing is paid for water, unless, of course, it is found possible to make substantial reductions in the cost of production. On the other hand, at an f.o.b. price of .$2.50 a packed box for oranges and $3 to $3.25 for lemons, the grower with average residual income can in most ca.ses earn interest on these valuations and in addition pay from $40 to $50 an acre for water. If the higher prices mentioned can be considered a reasonable expectation for the future, a water develop- ment project involving average animal charges to the crrower for water cf $40 to $60 an acre, with anticipated land valuations equal to those assumed, would ordinarily be considered economically feasible, proWded, of course, the cultural advantages of the land to be served are equal 9 — 3985 ]30 DmSION OP WATER RESOURCES to tliose in the areas from wliicli these rates have been eoinpnted. On the other hand, if the reasonal)le expectation is that over a i)eriod of years the f.o.b. price for oranges will be only $1.75 and of lemons only $2.75 or less a packed box, the project vvonld be economically feasible only at very much lower land valuations or with very much lower pay- ments for water by the ,u:rowers, or both. This (juestion, liowever, is considered more fully in the last section of this chapter. In one of the Avalnut areas referred to in Table 53, the grower of average residual income can earn interest and pay the present average water charge with walnuts at 16 cents a pound, while in tlie other area the grower of average residual income can earn interest and pay more tlian three times the present water charge with walnuts selling at 4 cents a pound less. With water costs and yields similar to those in walnut area W-2, charges for water of. say. $30 to $40 an acre can be paid witli walnuts selling at 18 cents a pound and .still give the farmer a return of 6 per cent on a land valuation of $900 an acre, Avhereas at 16 cents a pound, only $14 can be paid for water and earn the same interest. Witli yields and land valuations similar to those found for walnut area W-3. more than $160 an acre could be paid for water and still leave a return of 6 per cent on a land valuation of $1,500 with wabiuts at 18 cents a pound, and at least $50 could be paid with walnuts at 12 cents a ponnd. It thus seems clear that in usinu data relating to residnal income as a basis for, or as an aid to, conclusions as to what expenditures farmers are justified in making for irrigation water, in any given area, both the price outlook and the values it is sought to maintain for the land ii-rigated are factors whicli require equal consideration with data relating to residual income. VALUE OF WATER FOR DECIDUOUS FRUITS. GRAPES, FIELD CROPS. AND TRUCK CROPS In discu.ssing Chapter I the crops considered in the present study, it was stated that it has been possible only to consider the i)roblem of water value and costs for truck crops, alfalfa, and field crops other than l)eans and sugar lieets. on the basis of what growers are now paying and what lias been found to be reasonable elsewhere; also, that the sanw approach has been necessary in part for deciduous fruits, lieans, and sugar beets. The amounts being ]iaid for water for such crops in the southern California coastal i)lain are given in some detail in Chapters IV and V and such information as the writers have been able to collect relating to cost of production, yields, and iiu'ome for these crops is presented in Chaptei- IV, Tables 31, 32. 33. and 34. But little more relating to the value of water for irrigation foi- these crops than is presented in Chapter IV can be added in tlie ])i"esent chapter. As shown in Chapter IV, deciduous fruits, grapes, and field and truck crops are in the main grown in the southern California coastal l)lain in areas where the cost of water for irrigation is much less than for citrus fruits and for walnuts; that is, they are grown mainly farther down the slopes where pumping lifts are less. VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION' 131 The only information that lias Ix-cii jisscinhlfil as to rosiflual incdinc from dei'iduous fruits over other costs tlian tlie cost of water relates to apricots in Hemet Valley and is presented in Table 22. The ranpe for the 10 records ^vas from about $:>") to over $400 an acre, but the records are for the hiijh-price years of 1})2<) to 11)2^). Tlie averajze cost of water ranpred from about $18 to aboiit $20 an acre, and while no attempt lias been made to adjust the cost-of-production data to lower price levels, or to consider in detail prices that may be anticipated for apricots, it would seem that the averaire cost of water shown by these 10 apricot records is high enough to raise a question as to the ability of many of the apricot growers to pay it under probable future prices for the fruit, without jeopardizing land valuations that it is customary to assume. On the other hand, this average charge would not be a serious handicap in the good deciduous fruit areas. Somewhat lower average water costs for deciduous fruit as shown by table 37 for the IMoorpark district and by Table 38, under one mutual water company, for the Ontario district, but about the same charge is shown by Table 38 for another Ontario mutual water company chiefly irrigating deciduous fruits ; and mate- rially higher and lower costs in deciduous fruit areas are listed in the summaries at the end of Chapter IV. In most deciduous fruit sections of northern and central California costs of water are generally lower than shown by Table 31, although there are some notable exceptions to this statement, such as Santa Clara Valley, in Santa Clara County, and parts of southern San Joaquin Valley where there has been marked recession in the ground Mater table. In a previous study by the writers of "permissible'' irrigation costs in upper San Joaquin Valley,^ the conclusion was reached that $7.50 an acre would be an appropriate charge to assume for Avater for deciduous fruits in that area in considering the proposed State water plan. The deciduous fruit chiefly in mind was peaches. For the deciduous fruits principally grown in the southern coastal plain — peaches and apricots — expenditures for irrigation water may be expected to exceed this figure. It is considered doubtful that addi- tional areas Avill be brought into deciduous fruits in southern Cali- fornia if the contemplated annual cost of irrigation water should exceed $10 or $12 an acre. No predictions are ventured in the present report as to the value of water for the irrigation of grapes. The considerations which will most largely govern appear to be the demand for grapes for wine- making and the ability to produce table grai)es of a high quality, such, for instance, as the ^Unseats of the Escondido district. It is believed a safe assumption that irrigation water will have a value for grapes in the southern coastal plain approximately equal to its value for deciduous fruits. As indicated in Chapter IV, the most important field crops grown in the southern coastal plain are beans (chiefly large limas) and suuar fleets. Table 31, giving 10 records for lima beans in Orange Countv, shows residual income above total production, harvesting, and over- 1 State of California, Department of Public Works Bulletin 34, "Permissible .Vnnual Charges for Irrigation Water in Upper San .Joaquin Vallev." bv Frank \dama and Martin R. Huberty. 1930. 132 DmSION OF WATER RESOURCES liead f'osts. not includirifr the cost of -vvatpr. ranging from $42 to $126 an acre, but these records mostly covered the years of liigh prices. Table 33, presenting 29 lima-bean records for Ventura County in 1929, shows an average difFerenee of $92 an acre after deducting the cost of irrigation and of about $50 when the average association net price to the growers for lima beans for 1!)19 to 1931 is substituted. However, using a price of $3.81, which was the average net price to the gi-owers for 1931, there is an average deficit of $14. Costs of water shown b\- Table 31 for Orange County average only $3.08 an acre, with a maxi- mum of $5.78. The average total irrigation cost, which included labor of application, for the Ventura County records was $9.42, with a maxi- mum of $24. G3. However, Table 43 in Chapter VI shows frequent instances in which costs of water for beans exceed $20 an acre and one case in which it was approximately $34 an acre, during the year 192S. The average annual water costs given in this table ranged from $10.73 to $16.64. The linia-ljean industry in the southei-n coastal plain is recognized as being a profitable one where conditions are favorable. It does not appear from the data that the cost of water has been a material factor in keeping farmers in or out of the business. The data presented in Chapter IV relating to sugar beets show that this crop has also been a profitable one, with a residual income over costs other than the cost of water above $50 an acre. The available information, however, is meager, and the sample included in the report may not be representative of the sugar beet industry. However, the growing of sugar beets is looked upon as a profitable business in areas favorable to this crop, such as the lower portions of Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura counties. Nothing specific has been assembled as to present expenditures for water for beets. l>ut it would appear that they do not in any case approach the high figures cited for beans. No attempt will be made in this summarv^ to reach conclusions regarding the value of water for alfalfa and truck crops other than to vofor again to the data resarding present costs presented in Chapters IV and V. Unfortunately the available information regarding these crops is mainly grouped with deciduous fruits and miscellaneous crops. Alfalfa is not shown separately in an>- of the summaries. The cost of water in 1932 under a public utility company at Gardena, where truek crops are predominate, averaged $18. 4S an acre. Undoubtedly water will have a higher value for truck crops in the best truck crop areas than it will have for alfalfa, because of the much higher return for truck crops, but the writers have not as.sembled sufficient data relating to these crops to .justify their suggestiim' any figures for eitlier for the southern California coastal plain. THE VALUE OF WATER FOR UNDEVELOPED LAND Nothing has been brought out in the present study which indicates that difTerent principles ujiderlie the value of Avater for developed and for undeveloped land. In each case the advantage gained by using the water is the ultimate measure of its value. However, while developed land nuiy continue in production with a cliarge for water so high as to leave no return for the use of the land itself in the form of interest or profits, or, in extreme cases, not even sufficient return to cover depre- VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 133 elation, the advantage gained from the use of the water at that price may not be sufficient to encourage the development of new land. In other words, it can not be assumed that the amounts established farmers are paying for water can be safely used in working out the financial set-up of a water-development project intended to bring undeveloped lands into production. Neither can it be assumed that farmers will always obligate themselves to pay as much for water for land which they either do not yet own, or in which they have not yet mad€ the investment necessary to bring it into production, as farmers on estab- lished land are now paying. For the purpose of the present study it seems a reasonable assumption that the investment necessary to bring new land into production is not likely to be made unless there is reason- able prospect of sufficient return above costs to maintain a value in the land equal to the investment in it, including the cost of necessary improvements and equipment. New land is, of course, frequently brought into production when a careful analysis of conditions would show little prospect of return sufficient to maintain values equal to the money and elfort required to establish the land in production. The purpose of the present study, however, is to bring out the facts, so far as this is possible, which will indicate the charges that can be met for Avater when other costs and income at a given price for the products grown are taken into consideration, as well as the investment in land and improvements as far as it is desired to make this a condition to undertaking the development of new land. "While, as above indicated, charges for water being paid on developed land may not be a safe guide in planning new water- development projects, it has not been unusual to assume that they are. In order to facilitate following out this procedure in connection with the undeveloped lands in the coastal plain of southern California, in case it is desired to do so, Tables 54, 55, and 56 have been prepared. These tables show the minimum, average, and maximum water costs for oranges, lemons, and walnuts reported by growers for which cost-of- production records have been obtained through the Agricultural Exten- sion Service and the California Citrus League. The water costs under various water companies and districts given in Chapter V are not included in these tables because they are average costs for entire systems and not costs to particular farms for which residual income has been computed. In addition to the water costs reported in the cost- of-produetion schedules assembled, these three tables show the computed residual income above other costs than the cost of water for three different selling prices for each of the three products, \'iz : $2, $2.25, and $2.50, f.o.b., for oranges; $3, $3.25, and $3.50, f.o.b., for lemons; and 12, 14, and 16 cents a pound, net to the growers, for walnuts. These prices are used because they seem to be as reasonable assumptions as can be made under the present uncertain price outlook. However, higher or lower prices may be found more appropriate at some other time.^ Setting up the residual income against water charges now being 1 The present efforts of the Federal Government to bring agricultural prices gen- eraUy to the levels of 1909 to 1914 might suggest to some that the average prices for those years be used in the analysis. Those averages were, for 1909—1910 to 1914-1915, Navel oranges, $1.54; Valencia oranges, $2.35; lemons, $3.25; Diamond No. 1 soft shell walnuts (1909-1913), 14.6 cents. 13-1: DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES paid facilitates reaching judgment as to whether the latter are appro- priate for areas j-et to be developed. The data j^resented in Tables 54, 55. and 56 are arranged according to the "areas" for which the costs, yields, and income for oranges, lemons, and walmits have been studied. It will be noted that the last column in each of these tables refers to the page or pages in the present report on which the undeveloped lands of the southern California coastal plain are described or listed; also that the second column indi- cates the location of the orange, lemon, and walnut "areas" with respect to the tliree main geographical divisions of the southern Cali- fornia coastal plain recognized in the present study and in the investi- gations of the Division of "Water Resources to which the present study IS related, namely : San Diego County, South Coastal Basin, and Ven- tura County. While the orange, lemon, and M^alnut "areas" are set up separately, it is to be remembered that in some cases they include the same districts, or, in other words, that the orange, lemon, and walnut "areas" are not separate hut in some instances overlap. Furthermore, tliere are some undeveloped lands in each of these "areas" which are not likely to be used for such plantings. For instance, truck crops are most generally grown in the recent alluvial bottom lands; truck and field crops on the areas near the coa.st and below the present citrus and walnut plantings, in Orange and Los Angeles counties; and deciduous fruits in the Yucaipa and Beaumont sections, and in some of the intermediate por- tions of Riverside, San Bernardino. Los Angeles, and Ventura counties. Water costs for these crops have been ]iresented in Chapters IV and V, and residual income, so far as ascertained in the present studv, in Chapter IV. It is believed that the above tables and the brief discussion preced- ing them carry the matter of usiim' costs of water on developed land as a basis for determining water charges for undeveloj)ed land as far as it is profitable to go in the present study. The tables summarize the data relevant to this (luestion that have been assembled; the measure and method of tlnnr appli<-ation arc necessarily matters of judgment in connection with particnlai- situations as they arise. An individual farmer can apply the data on the basis of the residual income above other costs than the costs of water which he believes he can obtain on the land he is considering developing. The State or any other agency, when uiulertaking to reach a judgment as to the "economic feasibility" of a proposed water-development project, can estimate the probabilities on the basis of the water co.sts reported for the various areas, and on the com]nited residual income to the average grower in the middle linlf of tlie growers or to the grower of least residual income in the upper two-thirds group of growers, the choice depending on the degree of conservatism it is desired to exercise. VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 135 > O GQ < O u zz -A u < T Q D -o IS o z a: ^ U <; 05 H >- o OQ o D u U I Is o u r cu ce: w — -a t> 'n X 3 a B o O GQ •»• lO lO « ^COOOlQi.V "T « ceo ca ^lOQOOOt^Ot^PO ^irt ^ CD ■^■^en n ^ooo--o ^^^, O. bi) o o o o E g OS « ^^lo o "5 o ccaccceacse ■*» rt 33 rt rt ._ Saaaaaca aaasacs g' -^^ ♦a.*AH m -x X o « ca 5 W)000________ rt (fl rt :« rt c3 11' o o o o o o 3 3 O O a 3 a ZJS^jaj3J!JS 3 3 3 033333333333 dgoooooooooo^ — c^e^-^irt^h-oooso—'Mco^'tft a s ° t. « tt w o > o *; 136 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES oa < > O CO < 8 z ^5 u QJ Q Z < a: o CQ O Q u H a: o OS z O u 2< jza a o u < u cu a: u H O (/3 H (/) O U U - I z o «i U w w -J a I H H < Z < Oi u I H o z 2 CO C^ - - o; --0 -— — 1 oo CO r* OS ;0 C-O ^ — « e>) «* o ■«.> CQ en o o o a> »/5 ja £2 1 C m «» ' ^ oc^ooe^-r^ — 2o o to cj r^ — C^iO •• CJ ^- c. < X — O 1- "t2 k. ■ ^g M 00 Oi-^ — .^O ■V 31-^ -^ c^ ^m ™ •* ~ "" n rt ft CO 1 V K . «* 1 C0 OO !© <-- OS Tt»00O-^O4.^t-< I'- OS *-" ' i t- O 1^ -^ CI O -i C9 s^ hi 5-0 I^ S 5 < **- 't^ o o m a i U3 bi S OS o ws OS oo -r^ c^ o t^ est'- CO OC-''-^ o 3 g — t^ O CO I-- ^ Ol (N -. '3 4* § a o 'm •r" ►■» ^ a o 12 a to b o V bo c ; \ a a a ; ^i?m : c c^cacQOQ >• >* ^*-'^ w m ffl « 200 «.s;ooa 2 2 QQj34aj3 3 3 .*:> 4J 4-> •«-' -^^ C C 3 3 g g c2^j:2c2c«>> « o> 1- 1 ^H c^ CO '^' *c CO r-' 1 1 JiJ:Ji JiJ!j:J: 1 'ft = 5 o « « s S •- ^ tto VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 137 < > <: o z < < Z a c < ^ OS a = z f" . a, !J c < = '^ fe ^ n O H "WW *EZ 3 ^ H (I. - H P-3Q OS ^ o u ^ a. * u OJ OS E W ^HO. [t * s w ^ 3 P b. b UO5 3 c« ft. SO S U ^ (d SI 2 H 9z Z < ng u ^ < f^ |8 ■*> 3 3 C C o 000 is ■si B B •S-S ^i o » u e E £ .!» £5 o S ,^ X - as X o .11 va—m ■5 "a I« 3 2-3 ec g ^i as ^ c S « • SJI o » o ■S22 «-3 •» X js'O C3 C = »«» CJ =3 C U O O ^ >2 fc- z: o w Ie sp- ec o o d ■ --3 2 xt- S L- •" 65 i^ ^ Ji S X S g Ji 5f X— "r : _ « .- . J c X o 138 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES If it is deemed sufficient that substantially half of the growers can meet a certain water charge and still maintain the value of their invest- ment, the residual income to the average of the middle half of the growers will be used. On the other hand, if it is desired that about two-thirds of the growers, under a given ass\uned price for the products to be grown, must be expected to pay the water charge without impair- ment of the value of their necessary investment, the residual income above other costs than the cost of water to the grower of least income in the upper two-tliirds group will be used in deciding whether the project shall be undertaken.^ Believing, as already indicated, that costs established growers are pa.ying for water are not necessarily a safe basis for assuming or fixing water costs or charges on land still to be developed, what the writers consider a more acceptable approach has been worked out in the four remaining tables, viz: Tables 57, 58, 59, and 60. These tables, instead of placing emphasis on costs of water on land already estal)lished, and on residual income at given prices, make the price which it is expected the farmers will receive for their products the basis for reaching conclusions as to what water costs will be incurred by individual farmers, what charges will l)e used in the financial- feasibility set-up of a proposed project, or what charges an agency with water to sell will fix. Using Table 57 to illustrate this approach, it will be seen by refer- ence to this table (1) that for each of the orange aiul lemons "areas" set up in the present study the average yields, the average costs of production, harvesting, and marketing, and the interest on the invest- ment are given; (2) that the price per packed box which farmers must receive for their products, with annual water charges ranging, in increments of $10, from $10 to $60, if tliey are to meet- all costs and also earn interest at 6 per cent on the investment in land, trees, improve- ments, and equipment, are shown ; (3) tliat the next to the last column shows the increase or decrease in i>ricc ]ier paclced box necessary iov each increment or decrement of $]0() in the investment on which interest IS to be earned ; and (4) that the increase in price per box the growers will need to receive for each increase of $10 in tlic amount of the water charge is giv(>n. hi other words, with t\ic above method of ai>proach, decision on the amount of the water cost to be assumed, or on the water charge to be imposed, is based first, on the yield and cost of production, harvesting, and mai'ketiiig to be ex])ected, and second, on the price it is believed growers will I'cceive for their ju'oducts. 1 Attention is asaiii called to tlit> fact that the fost-of-prodiiction and yield data for citrus fruits ami walnuts presented in Chapters II and III and used as a basis for the various tables showinp: residual income do not include records from the jioorer 10 to 2(1 i>er cent of the orchards. Conseiuiendy the exjiressions "tniddle half of the growers" and "growers of least residual income in the ui)per two-thirds grouii" refer only to the better 80 to 90 per cent of the prowers. However, it is believed that omission of the poorer 10 to 20 pei- cent improves the value of the sample, since it is more representative of conditions which may be expected to prevail. VALUE AND COST OP WATER FOR IKKIOATION 139 Hi CQ < Z o H (J ? - ft. Q ^^ .a- o<< n/ Z eg p^ u 3 Z^ f- f- H (/5 u tfl w n O > o U td o; < < H I a H u > Z o o o z ^" ■< a w fl< Z a o a J z < J t/3 ft- U ' o o zz z a: S: u w < Q Z < f- Z u > O a. , o OS S Z o u. o O < OS O o y Q o z 03 <: h5 * < > < u < a as u cu u o OS 0. cs ►< rt g a 8 o*» ■" 2_, s si-ail's- 1 § Si- oor^ooeoc^cDc^ =-^fe. Q. o bH V o V v o «! « o ?i >. ■*^ «I o w 1 "" it C^C^C«JC^C^JC-1C^C»* C^J C^ C^ C^ C^ Cvl C^ C-) o^c^c^Mc^c^iM'r^ (M CS C^ CI iM C^ C^ C^ C^NCSIC^C^C^C^^H C^C^C^C^CNCIC^*^ o £? *- ffl <^ '^ -^ to 00 t^O-4 c^ c^ coco C^ C^ iM — * M 2^ o -^ *j — ■ - t> 2—2 S c » ^ < « £ ?3 2 & *o^ooc^ — -^ »o *-o to T '^ ^r CO CO ^ C^l CO iM ooc'-'Or--oooocoooi'»< cooiioffo — ^rOicoeooooot-- CO CO CO CO CO CO CO ^ CO CO "^ CO CO £.-§ ■< — a 1— ■— "OOOOOOCOr— 00 — ^OOi CO CO CO C-l CO c^ C^ cocoes CO (M oicococico e^ C^ CO CO C-J CO c^ C^ CO CO C*J CO c^ C^ C^ CO M CO w lO 00 O -M CO -^ r» Oi OS »n lO CO t« CO CO »o ^r «5 oo t^ corner o 00 lO 'S" CO :D iM »HCiieo^«3«t--oda»o — Cjto SJjJjJjJjJjJj II ^ 'U 2-a 5.Sf •_-a O o t« 00 ■ — b CS 3 ^ o ■a"o :2 « §^ o a SiCQ rt . so > ■ 140 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 00 U5 U CO <; H < d z > H Z 0. z <: S w cu u u < O O H Z „ Oi u H O U U 05 E w H a- . o< OiD w , > w O E O H O Z H - >'H 58 s^ w o z 05 a u o < a: > H zS o '^ Q 2 z «^ Q O 5^ z S u ?2 H u O O H H Z u a C u u w Z o< <: >< < p. S » _ O b S ^ S »- 5 c f? *-< 00 r- r* CQ !C lO lO >o cc ■^ o 03 a> tliiijij-^l is 5 CO "^ C*3 fO CO CO CO M CO CO CO CO 00 *-• 10 * a is o s. CQ d C^C^C^WC^C^'MC^IMC^C'IC^ c<> c^j cs : CO CO CO CO ^f CO C^C^C^C-^CIC^C^C^C^MC^M eg coco CO -V CO COiOCOCOCO^**CO— '»C':0^*W5 C^C^)C^ 0-0 :* " tl < « p « I 000000000000 dOcO-^tOC^JOOCOCOOlO'^OO o^-Ooooi^ooc^r--coto*M oioiou5coc*flr^i— c^-^c^o cot~^c^ias»ccooo-^co»oo eoc^coc^cococotccocoec^" ■^ uo lO to o ^- CO »o -^ -f w ?o a> w cj o . tD^r U5 I^ ^Mco-dootor-ooo — e^m g L Jj J5 Jj J, Ji a 0- bO 3 tH (1» a eo ai c K CQ (iifc VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 141 ' to cover each additional expenditure of $5 per acre for water Increase or decrease in price per pound for each increment or decrement of SlUOin the investment on which interest is to be earned r^cO'«r -TOO CO | = = o ■«•■<«<-« ~U5^ d ■S — M — B O'HOO mindd a •0 ao 3 OOIO o> S — O) CO m B 00 «• 3 ■ft 2 a g^ OS|-*C30 >." £ &: 0) •a 3 lO 1^ O o. U3 a •» « o V *n CL, i-HCOrr cncor-co w r^:0^ CgMOOO • U5 c: «» o r; fc- 000 W5 "3 rest stme Gpc ent (B) -*• :o CO f CD 00.^0 -^ > cs — C3 »-H .^ . QOkcr* CM ti~ CO OS CO Ji"— C = « ^ '^ '^ _ -^ ^ > o-o :* ^ t- In COOOCi <"|J 1- ■^ CO ■* OON eragc unds eld, acre w r- 1^ '** '^ ■< — 0. CS 1 ; ; : » < 777 if^^ > a P. d S <*» b o> » JS s. 10 •— ea-o ■xa a 3 ■a-o •n a 3 S n U V eg s y. < £ 142 DIVISION" OF WATER RESOURCES o UJ J f- SQ [o < O a. o a: O u I H O H O z H w u > < c z < z o H u Q O a, o u 05 < a; 0. u Z z < u a; u < a Ui 0. o J a n a a y C/3 H ^ O H J,' Qi Z r5 n a <«• 5S o u a I H a, a > O o o >■ < CO a o a Z H 3 Z 05 o a o z 3 O cu a 0. w a o 0< a ^ m f-j f^ "^ '-^ (/I «■ - a 5; > o 3 7- '^ o 2 «^ PS a i2 ^ » CO < . Q a o a w s a < in H , , «»> J. '^ , O I fe ^hO '"zf- SqS '^ z a: 3 < K a CO M X f- u f- ''^ c ^ o z ^ u w S^ (0 I o a H ffl > u < z a a " o O a z •< ■^ ,<; ^ h^ <^ a" .J 1 -r -r ~5 c: ^ j;: — P • — ^ t] :5 i: ^- L 35 — c •-: o C-- — <^ I; I -^r r^ ^5 ♦> Increa price poui necessa cover additi exiwnd of $5 acre wat c: rease or rease in ice per lound r each ement or pmentof in the cstment which rest is to earned m »o JI-~--||ul§f-S .— « .— 1 cc«o cs GO tS 3k O ■2o« — "^ C«M — «f» O oooo CO =5 US StCM — C — N — «» a 3 lO OiO a =» — r* o CO wu; c^ ^ s =: ^- fM "^ m ^« CO s_/ 3 a. < O— ?) to *•- t£i-^ Oi S o s ^«-o o " C — CM -. o 5 •» u M ea O 5* <- O CO ■" o CO t^QO O «3 "^ ss o 5in = o c — C-l — il «» (U c -o o CN> cc »n COCiC^ Q. »c S^oi d u C — — -" a «* & w ha t^oo ^ ^ ^ 31 o ^■^ 3S 3> C ^ — «« CC -^ 00 t^-r >o « ■2c«:oo 35 »c c — — •» O C "** OOCl o 5 fc- mm 3 rest Ope (B) -^-as-o :i -^ :3 II- I—" .^ Average cost of production, harvesting, and marketing, per acre' (A) »« o c^ « -ro 00 t^ r^ t~C4 0O a-9 -z Aver pou yiel per a 8 ^ — ' C«' CO i ^^ip (U & s a a il £, s. 3>n c^ 5-2 •2 8 SI Is VALUE AND COST OP WATKR KOR IRRIOATIOX 14.'? Wliilc. Hs t'r(M|\n'nlly hioii^'lit out in the prcccdinpr pa^cs, tlio data on costs of prodm'tion asscinhk'd in tlio prosont report, and used as the basis for tlie above and the precedinp: tables, are to some extent the result of estimates, and to a certain extent subject to adjustment to cultural requirements and market conditions, they are believed to i-epresent with substantial correctness the amounts •growers will spend in producing and marketing: oranges, lemons, and walnuts; that is, with the selling prices for the products grown falling within the ranges used in nuiking uji Tables ,14. 5"). jind oG. and shown in Tables 57, 58, 59, and (iO as necessary to give encouragement to the development of new plantings. Continuance of substantially lower prices, such as those prevailing in the season of 1932-1933. would necessarily lead to sharp reductions in costs on established orchards, with inevitable elimination of many of the unprofitable plantings. Substantially higher prices than the ranges given in Tables 54, 55, and 56 would without doubt encourage higher production expenditures than indicated in the study, but there should still be a higher residual income above costs, unless, of course, the higher prices .should also lead to increased plantings. When considering the approach to the problem of the value of water for undeveloped land provided in Tables 57, 58, 59, and 60, there may be objection by some that the expectation of earning interest on the capital investment should not be set up as a prerequisite to con- struction of water development projects for undeveloped land. On the other hand, there might be objection by others that the amounts of the investment used in the tables for computing interest to be earned are too small. There can be no fixed rule. Adjustments up or down in the investment can readily be made by appl.ving the figures in the next to last column in Tables 57. 58. 59, and 60. The bare land values used in preparing these tables ranged from $500 to $800 an acre, according to the showing as to profitableness made by the data relating to com- ])uted residual income above other costs than the cost of water. In conclusion : One of the important considerations to be taken into account in deciding on the water charges that can be applied to unde- veloped lands in the coastal plain of southern California is the wide variation in the range of profitableness of the plantings. Table 17 most strikingly brinirs nut this variation, but it is also .shown by the other frequency tables in the report which relate to residual income and yields: i.e.. Tables 14. 15. 2S. 29. and '.>(). As indicated on page 39. the data assembled relating to cost of production and yields of citrus fruits are considered to be fairly rejiresentative of the upper 80 per cent of the growers, except in one area the data for which are thought to cover the full range. The figures presented for walnuts are considered a good cross section of the going orchards, not including those about to go out of production. The variations brought out in the frequency tables are thus fairly indicative of the differences that occur in the profitableness of citrus and walnut growing in the southern coastal plain. Obviously, in small areas which are reasonably homo- geneous, the differences will be less marked and consequently need to be given less consideration than in larger areas. Besides suggesting the need of caution Avhen considering the water charges that are to be placed against undeveloped land in any proposed 144 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES new project, the variations indicated by tlie frequency tables, as well as the variations in the residual income to the average grower in the middle half or to the growers of least residual income in the upper two-thirds group shown especially by Tal)les 18, 19, 30a, and the last ten tables presented, will perhaps be of practical interest to individuals without previous experience in orange, lemon, and walnut growing who contem- plate purchasing either developed or undeveloped citrus or Avalnut lands. It is thought to be to their advantage that, in advance of investment, they seek to make an appraisal of tlie position in the range of profitable- ness their particular proposed farm enterprises are likely to have. In making such an appraisal the descriptions of the principal physical characteristics which so largely govern production and profitableness in tile various "areas" presented in the appendix, as well as the brief outlines of the economic outlook for the crops chiefly considered, given in the earlier parts of Chapters II and III, may be helpful. Although it has not been possible in the present study to consider in much detail the costs, yields, and prices Avhich in the end determine the profitableness of the deciduous fruit, vine, truck, and general farming industry in the coastal plain of southern California, the data presented in Chapters IV and \' will he of assistance in arriving at judgments. It is clear that the value of water for these crops is gov- erned by the same principles that underlie its value for citrus fruits and Avalnuts. No practical basis for separating its value from the value of the land on which it is used has been established, and to attempt this has not been one of the purposes of this report. Obviously the amount to be paid for water can not exceed the difference between other necessary costs and the price received for the products grown, unless, of course, capital investment is to be sacrificed. The costs of labor and materials are largely fixed in the general markets and are therefore not appreciably affected by action of individual farmers. Therefore, the amount one considering the development of new land is likely to obligate himself to pay for water will depend largely upon the price he will have to pay for such land and on the cost of bringing it into production. If the one who is to develop the new land already owns it, the amount he is likely to obligate himself to pay for water will be determined largely by the added net value of the production which will be obtained by irrigating it. In no case Avill it be to the advantage of the farmer to pay more for the water than such added net value of the production. It is entirely conceivable, however, that under conditions of water scarcity and land surplus, water will be taken for undeveloped land at such a higli price as to leave little value ill \ho land on Mliich it is used beyond tlie cost of improving it; or, in other words, that the cost of water will largely determine tlie amount that will be paid for or be invested in the land, rather than the cost of land and the cost of improving it largely fixing the price that will be |)aid for the water. This tendency for the cost of the water to be the determining factor in the value of land is, in fact, already apparent in the coastal i)lain of southern California, but consideration of this matter is outside of the immediate objective of the present report. APPENDIX 10— 39S5 APPENDIX LOCAL AREAS IN THE COASTAL PLAIN OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COVERED IN STUDY OF VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION FOR CITRUS FRUITS' 111 till' division of the coastal })lain of southern California into areas for the purpose of study inji' the value and cost of water for citrus fruits, it was found desirable to make separate <>rou])iii<;s for oranp;es and for lemons. Oranpes are grrown throup:hout the citrus areas. Taken together the two principal varieties permit a wide range of sum- mer temperatures. Navels, however, are found mainly in the interior, while Valeneias do best nearer the coast. While there are several varieties of lemons, the acreage regardless of variety is found largely within the coastal and intermediate zones, the interior zone being too hot for the production of a liigh percentage of summer fruit. - For both oranges and lemons, heating re(iuirements, pest control, water reijuirements, and other cultural needs and practices vary with climate, while soil type and topography intiuence production costs and yields. After making a detailed field survey, the coastal plain Avas divided into twenty-one orange areas on the basis of various factors mentioned in the text.'' They were later regrouped, on a climatic-soil basis alone, into fifteen areas. The climatic zones, as described previously, are coastal, intermediate, and interior. Differentiation was made on a soil basis between the open, recent alluvial soils and the older, more compact types. The number of lemon areas was reduced from thirteen to seven by the same method employed for the oranges. In some cases orange and leninii areas are practically identical. ORANGE AREAS Area 1 includes the inland citrus sections of San Diego County — El Ca.jon, Escondido, Vista, and Fallbrook. Oranges, especially Valencias, are the i)redominant citrus crop. Approximate acreages of full or partly bearing citrus fruits are as follows : lemons, 2600 ; Navel oranges, 1060; Valencia oranges. 4860. There are also about 3000 acres of nonbearing Valencias. ^ Data on orchard heating have br-en secured from Mr. Floyd D. Young, Senior Meteorologist, United States Weather Bureau. Soil classifications have been obtained from published soil survey reports, or from the unpublished information of the Division of Soil Technology, University of California. Data on acreage in crops have been secured, as a rule, from county agricul- tural commissioners. - Zones are as defined by R. S. Vaile. See page 22. 3 See page 21. (147) 148 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES In general, the land occupied by citrus is rolling. Windbreaks and orchard heaters are not common here, about 400 acres being heated. The mean seasonal rainfall varies from 13 inches at El Cajon to 17 inches at Fallbrook. ]\Tost of the soils have been derived from granitic rocks. In the El Cajon region citrus plantings arc located on the residual soils of the slopes and upon the recent alluvial soils at the rim of the valley. The largest citrus plantings are on the granitic residual soils sur- rounding Escondido. There are about 2500 acres of young avocados near Vista. Fallbrook, located near the northern boundary, is sur- rounded bj' a large body of good soil. The acreage in citrus is not large, however, as the developed water supply is small. The practice of fumigating every other year in the southern part of the area and every third year in the northern part has given good results in the control of scale. One spraying during the nonfumigating years is required to control red spider. "Within this area is found the largest percentage of good, undevel- oped soils in San Diego County. Most of the area is served b}^ gravity water, the Fallbrook district ))eing the main exception. Area 2, embracing the Arlington, Riverside, and Ilighgrove dis- tricts, is an old citrus section in the interior climatic zone. Navels rank first and Valencias second, while lemons occupy only a small percentage of the acreage. About 40 per cent of the citrus acreage has heating equipment. Seasonal rainfall varies from 10 to 15 inches. Wind is not considered verv troublesome. Ramona and Placentia soils, types intermediate in point of age, predominate in this area. There is, however, a considerable acreage of recent alluvial soil on the fans and plain land. It was not feasible, however, to divide the area. Topography varies from the flat grades near Riverside to the steep slopes of the Highgrove section. The low and intermediate areas receive gravity water, while the upper areas are served by pumping. Scale is not a serious problem, one fumigation every other year seeming to provide good control. Spraying every year is required to control citrocola scale. Area 3 is in Orange County, covering the Tustin, Santa Ana, and Orange districts. This is within the coastal zone, where summer tem- peratures are moderated by the ocean l)ree/es. While the majority of the orchards are mature, there is a large acreage of young plantings. Over 90 per cent of the oranges are Valencias. The usual distance of plantings is 25 feet by 25 feet for the older groves and 24 feet by 24 feet for the new. The soils in the main are deep, medium-to-coarse textured, and of smooth topography. The frost hazard is not considered great l)y Uie growers, as only about 10 per cent of the acreage is equipped with heaters. Wind, however, does constitute a menace, approximately 4 per cent of the orchard area being occupied by windbreaks. TVIean seasonal rainfall for the district is about 12 inches. VALUE AND COST OP WATER FOR IRRIGATION 141) On an average, groves are fumigated or sprayed four years out of five. ^lost of the area is served l)y art of the area, while the development around Fontana would be considered new. Representative cost-of-production and yield records were not avail- able for this area. About half the citrus acreage is devoted to navels, one-(|uarter to \'alencias. one-tenth to grapefruit, and the remainder to lemons and miscellaneous citrus fruits. Tile western portion of the area, in particular, is subjected to Gajon Pass winds. Because of this, aboni 7 per cent of the area is taken up with windbreaks. The soils are coar.se-text un-d and of itMcnt alluvial oriuin. In some places they have become windblown. VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IKRKJATION 151 The topojiraphy is coniparativi'ly Hat from east to west, but witli a nnit'onii riso in elovation of from about 1 ()()() f('«'t on the soutb to 200(1 feet near tlu' mouth of Lytle ("reek ("anyon. Area 10. Included within this area are those citi'us districts of the San Gabriel and Santa Ana valleys which lie within the interme- diate climatic /one and in which the predominant soil type is of recent alluvial origin, viz. .- the Coi'ona district and the lou<>' citrus belt cxteud- in. ^^ . y?: 2^ > u . O •cin a n o ^. < u .£ 0. «2 (/) SR Qi u T3 o ^ 8< g o sf5 c 2^ H „ to 7. 1"^ a: «^ f,^ UJ Mji Qi CO u Q CQ Z H •< CO C C5 tA c a Q u o V p<; o o E 7 O 30 ■ ■a — < H U ■'■ CO s 3 Q O si w o: ^o Q 7 «-5 NN a*^ S u E X "0: «o ,E« w -= s <: 5 5 OS ^ ^ uu ^ M > 4J < Note — All records eturns to grower are no ^lifnrnia. •fC^OOOOCC — ccc^ — •c — ^ CJ . O^^U^QCC^SCllSiCOO — 00— ••«0 — 'Moo r^ OC C-l 00 h* 00 c» C-l C-l »0 QO "^ : "f a:; 00— •tcosi'-r-csoo'^oo C4— •OCO'^QOQO CI c^r-- •—••-• O — ' CC -M — -^ — 'M c^ r- s c* — •- CO tfi r* cs oi c^ c^ c^ i^csc^cjci'M'M^-oooo»rt — r-csTfrccc; oi c^ CS-DO-^^C*4C^C^COrj> — ^Tru^»ccC'*t'-r-r»rt»C"fre-rrc-r*c-r'r •»t^0>^0:000> COO^OiOO*-^ — (M VALUE AND COST Of WATEK FOR IRRIGATION 155 to o CD<0 if* 00 !Or*cooO'MQOooec-!r(MOoo-fcooo>cocD'MO C^ -^ ^ CC ^^ — — -^(M C^ ^ •-< -- iM ^ — ^ fC -^ -^ — • ^ :0— «i0CS^-Q0'^OC0':Oc0CCCCt--O00C0 — ^- -H CO c^ ^- -- C^ C^ CO ic o oi o -r c^ Oi o CO ic CO 4C (M r- t^ cc 'M r* o — to ^-oococoooccrc-^rc — tc — :c-»r"^-^r^ oooOw'^— ^coCTiC^tococot^Citor^iococisoccco^-'CO — i^oo^^ »CGCQO:7iOOOOiC^iOOC^^^rOTl— iOdOOM''3»c^oocooiOc^oooc^C5^t*ior^cO'-' cO'«rtOcD'^-05'^tO OOC^COGOCltOOI^r-Os COOO CCO -fOsr-OlC^t^OCOOC^C^OO'MtCI^OaCO 00>000500'^r^fO*^^^^'2'M''5^C^COOi — c^coiT^oscftai^Di-^-^t^or—oot— ^r- cO"-*':C:ccocooo5GO-^oo»ooocorot— oo QO I t^:0'^ioOS»O05^-Oit-cqQ0c000Oi0M!:0i0'^»0t>-i0C0'-«Ci»0 t^ 0> OO t-- n- t^ >— « O T CO Oa t-- t^ Tf ^ Oi ■Tf ^H t^ lO OO '— -n* •-' CO •-« CS CD 'TpiOkO-rOOQOiOtOOOlXi^OtCCi-^O-T c;tci?or^tD(N^-^^co — csi^oocTstc — -^T-ic^c^Jcinc^c^c^c^cocororccoroio CO uO <^^:i:a;tcoooO'^■l^-w^-co'M^>•'^^l00oo»Od--rco^i■C5 0l— ^c^i"* ^CCOCOiOCOCO'fC^iOC^'— — W^iC— '«0'^iCCOOO'^^^CO^^--.CC^ OS— '"^o:c^co-rr-OM-^t^QOO'riiOiCr^ctOT = > 0.5 "a o c* ■SE CO 356 DIVISIOX OF WATER RESOURCES ^^ •— > ■ < — 4 . , 00 <0 • < < > «• -c cc ■ ■« . , t- . ^ . . . , O ■ ■ 1 CO 1 1 . • • • 1 1 . . . . 00 = ii 1 i 1 1 )tft :2 i ' ' c^ .-^ .r* , . . lo ■ • it^ 11 v^ Isi 1 1 1 ■ T c»iC • ' < CO ■ . .OO It- . . . . • 1 itO ■ > 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1^ tS« . 'O e £ 2i t* J J ] 1-H J 1 1 I 1 (II 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 I • 1 *^ ■»rcc-rooor^»«ccccc^ — — r0-r:O:ct^M:Otcrc-T— 'C! — cos'l^ir^r^ — — r:i^l^;SOi«C500 ^^ ciMacQCor^c-ioc^e^ooo — com-nc^r^^cs^c^o-rocrjooc^csiw-rc^oo-roinr^r^^to ield, eked oxes --> -1 — ^l-lC-l — -5-— OJC-l— -MC^MC-l — CCCMCOC^nc-l— M«« — C^ — MMI^C-l — C^M 1 " >> !.-=> oor^t-o-^-r-TMa-j-OM-roast^ssm— •3soo=5t~-^r-ooc^-^c-i — QoolO — = -^ — rst-'B' lO — -ri- — = t^u;«oc»c»i~n.--: — ■ct^'rtcc^ — •nr- = c-i>n--c — = :=r-=:>«— =-. u'^-r — »« o «*- 3 — inr^c^-c — T^— acoc3C-r30 — >.-i.--r^^).CTi - — >n-roc = -rr rLi — ^K^ri^^om 00 c°| «^, _-^j^_ -^ — ^^i «^)_M_^_c^»]^^)^^ — __«^i^i_». ^— .— •fr i ** C!M«3i«-^'M = u;t^ ifflt^ce3io-fr~oeo=!t^;=» = osr>.oot^« = t^oo«-^s^ooot^ n. A c S--oi^r~ot^^ooco>« -TC!-r05c-ic^o«"5MO = >c — oooso-^isc^onoccccr^cccc- ^^ £.2 ooMM-rooo— •5eMeo5=rc-r«-j=-Tin=-roec5«oo«-«'t~ooe^r~ciMr~oc-JO— 00— -"Ci cs d*^ •• — c^ cc — — — — — — ^- — — — — — — — fO « «» .- c;-rint^ = ;sc» — c^ 1^ g ciSsooc oc« — 05-^:=; — ococ- K— cc-ru5Q0-r=r?o-j = — r^ — ■mcouio — -^oac ~ — _._c.jo — r-— — — = o — — — c-jc: — r; — m — — i •» - •— « o»icc^c»o — o-^050o-^ccco--!£--o— •.-^ — CO- oicrc- -^-^oe — cooo-^coc^t^ooec— ''tf' CO So— ■«oiiooo-c-3-S5>«-r«o^io-JC-jr;c-i-r = = — — « — MC5r~«35r~r;o — — -j-ssi o s cir-ccoc-Tin — — = ^--rt-~ — = in-i — — i^.ffi^~r=.= (Mu3 = (M-^-^ir:3>^r- = oe .1. K c^ — -.ic«:c-JricC'M-r>nrc«rc>ffccc-:^c-)rrrCrt'M-r?irr'M-r^CJ-r'MMM-r-iTC«C!i en -* «» «» E- r^-rr^«-rt~o;=M-roontocM«5mo5=t — lomow t^ O gS St^ooo5oM«t-ic«5 = -ro«>rai^c^«TOMoa5>«o«-j=-i= = — «=i = c:=»>o^oe»3 « oo»o-ro=! — o-rocM-iocSJ-^c-i-jc^uiwinr^^-; r- — — -T = u^-Ti^oooto«o»CMCj c «»— .^^— ^ — — .— — ^^— .^c'l'M — ra— — c*jc*i — »» >• oS < c-) — — r,— — =:oOCTi^>oc;oico>.~ — om3>s»-yMM«iM-rooa5r~eccsc5Csir.e>» oa t-iSioooo-^c-iioo- «oint»MOiMi^ — e^«inr^-^u5oo^i-i« = t^^ = -T=5t~.cr~K^e cs 1 e^-joi~t~cot^c:'0«oo"5 = t^oo-<'--c"5'«J'=«-'oer^ — ooc=e^-^CMmt~r^«o-ii~rc = s>o >« tofC3oOin-^oo-j=-i = i^>noeoor--i^Q005aeoo«ooocsoc3i — oot^r-csr-T'M — cxjrir^sii^ r* es •» ^ t~ — •^oif«n=TCoao = -^MOO — MO«TrQ0r^i« — wM:=Cir~^3iai«c<:t-«=f~--==^ -v K — o:i--5-r-ri^ = ocsoo«>--5«u5 — ooiMQOsjr^^racc- t^o«M = ?ir^oe = KOt~>«ioo ^ 00O5-r»fflmio--5-r=^cc— »«r5 — -i — r~^oeoc = oo~; roc>n = — o^c^ou^ro- a>o « « o§3S§^-oo --00 = 1-0 — C5 = =>o oo ~_-.-„_.o-'M--r)-r — 31 es ^^ -«.-■ «M r«<— • r-^ ^M^M_MvM^_^_>M^> ^^^^—tmm^m.^^^^ — ^^'^^^m^^^^ «* s 00-T5500're«C-J-r-r~;--00r- = C.JO — — O-^'MD-T00=t--O — OCC — OC^MtMSSO-T-S'-r ■;; _, S — — ini-; — oo>r:-.rr!t~.r — "nt-ooc — "n^^co-cae — orr'M — C3CO — =■- — r mao — « "* "a os-riC^occO'Tcn — — ■^»or-^o — oec^c-r-^oo- c-»»o — r— — Ci«»i^t— 00*000 — uso-^t— cs oScoSSZ — c^cM'Mc^e^MMcc-r^-eusususu-iousoasoj-t-i-t-o- — — — coMrt o — Sc->cjc->c^caM(Mc>>c-)CM(Ne>c^Ne^eMo>oi«Me«5coM!co5«w r) E- M «* 00 51" u^'^»c*cw5rr;»C'-r»«»c-^»«»oic-j''^»«»rt*'5iCi«»rt-rtrtu^icrc»c*c»C'^ic-»'»c*c»c»c*c»o»o — c « « O fc- >» -^•o X 00 ec«eo^oo:OQOC4cD'^aooo --'^oo»c^co«Ob-<-'C^t^oat^ooc-i3ar^»n-ocoi0^r>-oot«»neoo^50oo0'— rOCOOOiftCiOOCO — OOCMtOsO-^COOr^OOO^OtOcOQO oo-^0:s»or*-*«0 — t^— "OSNOOsOso-^^ooo^noooa oo-vco—«'^cj^j'ccaicc'^o^^00-^e»500cot>-ooa0co ••cc^oicoooooot^cx)OOt^oi — r^-f-*-^ — — on — aot^Cicoci'Mccoooo — -f-^^ (Micoir3Cii:^y:;cr::or^»ocit^eo-^:oxiTf»ocDti:>coo I t^-rt— coc5aso:r;a:cx: — :» — ooi^oo:c — i>-c:— — r^ — eo Tj«-^r^OOGOOOO^t^»OCiiOiCO^^^»COO(N-fr^ — '^'rrO'rf-^^cc»0"Tir3ioto-*r^!Mcctr;oeir2t^:ooor- CO — — c^c^cocororO'r'r»'ioic».':*oio-^t:r:--^t--3CcoaC' «» o>C'ric^»c»^*co»cu'5io*n«o»^»/2-*'*0'^*c»J5»c»i5^ oo »/5O:Ci0i0i0iC— iCcoiOiOiciCtft'^^--OiO'^roiOro c > ■2J ^s: c^ r) r^ c^ c*» CI ?i c^i M r-J CI M — t^ ?i 7^1 rc ' s CO o --c — ro CO r CM c: 00 c: CO o I N C^ T^ C^ C^ 0« -^ corcaor:3Cnc)-rt^Ooo:C-rOT-rtDicr--cc- c^w3'— « — ^c^^^OlOC■^c^lC-rco*-0'•!^^c^c^-o^O"■ eocccococo^occ^cc-^co^ocg?occ^^cococcfOcos ^C5 CO 10 158 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES -r • ^1 tr^«f* . ■ -r -r u5 ' •^ .— -" ' -r ■ -f »c C^kO-- r^ J « ■ ■Cfc eturn to rower CI ■CD • cooi • "^ ^-CO ' ■ . . ^ •CD-^O < '« i ^ ■ CO O t »n -f c*:c*5 rs -^ :o ■ '^ tor*'V ■ -00 Si : ■ « s; be ^- — — ^-c^— '^-— -rici — dc^cj — c^ — •— CJ c^ — w — — cici — c»^ffcc^ > --^ >■ S~ ad u < 0. w b; u o a; o o H w Z a: a z •< CO Q •o V 3 _c c u CO u z S 2 H u D Q O b O 12 to O u < Q Q Z HI b O (« u O < > < .J D3 < I c^ oo CI -r : Depre- ciation — -^OOOO — -^-T'MOOO— -vr^-^-rstCI^OOOOOrC — CCt^ — WQOMC*«C« Ci — -^0'^:ffooiO-^csc^r^oorc-^:C'^-»f'OcsiCrcr^ — NOOODOcr^r-.'^ oo en 00 o — oc oioceoci g c 2 s *o-^ — 00 csrcoo— CO CI o ooo os— ooccccpqo CQ re — CO r- — — r^ — oo oo ?o cj c^ ce O ■^ — oosss-- O-^ oo n — — — oo oo o o — o»« s s cs -r *« :2 »o — o c^ •■* o «» X e2 c^o»c*oooo»QOce — ■^■^'M'^t^t'-coc;'^ — oo»oo^oo«3:aocc^ cco^ccc — "^'fc^ — crceo;ci»cooooaei^c*o — i^oic — caooicoOi^ — Ci— ■-^ — --cricncei-'^c. — c:r^ — — »ccn«cc3tO— ccocccrc-^oor'- reooccto -r -^ C: M — ce — cj ce -r 1 1 2l — OOOOOOOOiCOOOO-r'^«tor^OOC<» — iC^ — Cii^tO-Mt^OCMOiCfO cci3icc»C'*^-oorct^t^o — c^ — oo*-re»c 00 00 ooo>:occcoaooocO'^e>40i>-«^i/30aoar^«*ao^-«o>^oi^tcjeoccoa^-«coioiot^^oo^-t^»ooO'« (O^^NOcocoeoMootO ooasc^r^:^ooocc?cC535»o»ot^c^:oy50oOooooor^QOr*fCiffOMOO*r^ 00 CO 00 0> CO looecc-iu^ooo-f — — — O o^^ W(M -4 ^ -- ^ -f o --00 o o 00O00C^00"f'^00a0^-«^^'^OOi--r:D:OC^0000C^Ii^3^>O33i/^t^t^Or^t~^C*JOi-fOt^ OOt^— tC^CCr^int- t^COOC^dOOOCO'-'O ior^'---^i^c-3'^oooooO':f'c:iCi»nc*ic^ccfOooiooo-t-oo-t''-Hiroco't't^-r=^totocco t^-^— ■r^rc«rot^r-Mrc-*C5-^-X)ccrc»coo--a=r--oir^r?c^cct^c^T-icoiociOC^ § r-c^icoioc<)oo»C"^o«50*-«'—-^-*'3s-ooorc— ■— •oo-T"CQooooo-f^o-^^^o^-ooi>.roooa3'-^ t^oooi^-^'^:Dt-i^a5CiCst^ccroi^r-oo»ot-*OCiccc;0'— '•^■Tfor-:03ioocot— o ;:CQOooao::^csc53iC5:3iC50'-'--c^c^coc^co-*-*^o»cin»oio»ouo?D:cooos'--«rC'^as lftfC»Cu^iO»CiOiO»C"^'*'iO'*^»0>C'OiOi^iCiOiOiO»0»OiOi'^iO»0»0-fiO-T'»OiC'0 iO'^'^Tt'"^iC-^>0»C«0 10 t^ -^ -J -^ ;0 »c r- r^ tc lO '-0 r-- --C -^ CD ti; -^ in »o to r- r* r««. r~ t- ^ -r "O lO h- 4C t^ CO :. wcoccccffcc^c^c^^c^c-^CJcccO'?•^c•lC^^c^^(^^c^J'^JCvlc^^CJC4c^lr^^c^i-^cv|<^a(^^f^J(mea(? — — CO i; -^ in »o to t- r- r««. r~ t- ^ -r "O lO 1^ 4C t^ CO o to car^oooooos — r^iooo or».tDOcioot'CO^-— ' io^^tO'rin-r^in»o J" ■a ea o o CO C o 160 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 3 O k u < a: u a. CO oi O o o H w z H Q Z <; co' Q Z o H (J Q O U, 0. lb O H M o u .J < Q > Q U. O w w O < CI — c^ c^ -— c^ ^1 ^- -^ CI c^ ci "M ^1 n :*; '^* — ^1 r4 cc c^i ci ^- cj — — ci w ci ci c» c^ w c» c^ cc •-• *-• •0 3 C u O Z < Oi o to <: H a'5 Q'S -J. oo »o ^ 00 GO cc oo c^ c^ ro "^ -^ r* c; 00 00 ro o — ' -- c^ O o c^ o — — — C^4 O — --4 ,-. ^ — — eoccro — — — c3 ococo^o^-oo-TOOc*^c*^coc^^oo^^ascc^-ooiO^»o^»^^'*oococ^»nQOoo?c•^-- — '^^>'>2^" eoc^CJc^coccor-t^oooi3i!OC^'^C'iO'^oO'-rOi'Troo»:o— <'^»oost~-3iCi^^ooc^^-fOOOO'— ' o>oooc03>tc*dC'^'-o-.o^t— c^oosiCii^cst-ost^oooocDf^iOoo — — ooif-^cncsr—cs " it Ml— « — d40t^*CeOrO^^OOOOCi*^0*.i5CO^tDOOC^'-C!'^:0-^Oi/5T;«0 Tr0000OCC--0CCC^C^J-*0000w:0t--CSCC00O'-'^G0O'^'rf>:O0S'^00 - OCSC4 OC^OtO':0»ft oO'^c*5<3iC^oor^-t';OOOt^'^tooiOOcCOccrow5!0:D:0^^cDO:D T-'*':000«C^C^00O-- O (M O too »ft o 03 — •Car-OOOT»'t^'^'^r*»OiOtOCDOOQO»OOC^O>— 'OC^3i050!0.— i00i'^-*'Ot0350iCiQ0CJCD OOSCOOt^-fOO-^-fOMC^sOC^*-0:DO:0-t«OOCO-r'^*COO*00-^t--OOt^OOOOt-rtOir* u5;ot>-»oo40:oeo;oOi:ooooooit'-oo3S'— it>-r-cs*c«ooootooo5i s d s oo-t--—-— '■-t'-**:oo.--(3ioacooooc^oascC'^tcr-t>--^«--ooDO--»/5r-'---«ooO'*-4''^^-fcoooco»n'5*=ot^oO'— c^<:occcco-^e*3t>-iOi/3'-«:DQOCsoieOQooas C^00t^i0C^01i-'»O0000tS(DOCi-t*--00'-'l~-OCikriOOOr0-rr-^-^D^-iM'-'00 — —••^QCOOr- oi:otor-toooor-t»oooooooo^-ooo^^ — ooocc^t-r^cswoo — oorccooc^3scsooc^c^o o cooc^ooot— r-coot^i-»b-*ocOTrt^-X)Ci-«s"Cs-rh-oor-oo»«oorcOoo^ot'-ioc^w»«t^ccci 005 — »ooo»occoo--*csoiNOO■^l>-7^c•^t>»:oc^;D■^'Hoa■^oo^•oOQOooooe^:o^o ^)*«y^^ ^m-« e*5C^*^ CHOI'S t'm aa en CO CO ^Tro — lo^cwogioo*"' ^^SoK!-f^MccSi-i^S(0«oevjf-po*-o>orc--C50soc'iesjeog»i o6oio«5»ooooc o O VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 161 c^ c^ cc re c^ M c^ »-<»-« ^ o ^ c^ —* CC CO ■^■(M -r COW'— <•— ' C^'— "— "C^COCO ^--- cc C^i— 'C^C^ oo in cc CiO'^OTpcCTfcD 4» :;ccc^^c^ioccx:c:ioc^CifC'^r^c^^^ccc:i-tr^c^3;^-cot— c>io^HO!Mco^r — c-idCiroiOt^oocvi-^-rc^05oooo^-:ooQOt^t^-^c^o 00--«C^CC'— *CceC^'Tr'^^Ot^O--'--'^--^C^^^OCO'—'l~^-*'^05u^iOCC^^C<)!;DOiC'lCOOOO — ^-^^ ,-.^-^-^-_-,— — ,^_- — ^^^- — — — — — — _^-,-^-__^H — ----— l_^-C'c-ic^iT^focorccorocococococccorocceocococo'Tt' c^ t— ^ w «» cc^3;co — iO-*o ot^iocoocncoc^ iO»C»/^ii5^»^»0*OW5-TiC>OiOiC»^>0'r^-riCU^4«U5iOU^>040-T'^i^iO*0»OiC'rrr'^-*' -^n^^iTi^xn^n »ft -^ C^ — :S •— ^^ '— C^ !M C ■a fe 00 1. a S3 5:£ H— 3985 162 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES ■a 3 C i U O z < a. o u < U OS u cu «) u o 8 z U] Q z < Q Z o H O Q O cu O w H (0 O U Q > Q Z O u O < X • i • > . . 1 1 . . i r c^ ; ' • 1 ' J 1 ] 1 ; ; ; 1 1 ; = c » ri 1 1 ■ 1 1 ■ f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 11111111)1 ■*00»c-^r^c^t-0 — -rc;rs^»M c^ C^CC-3"QO!Mai'^QO'«'Ci»dCO^CC3iMC*t^ — «-* OQOQOCCQOOCS^^C-ISSC^CCGOSS » -*-j'0o«:s-*' — t^e^«r^«»OMair^-^:s:£i-*rct^ ■=■2 2 c^MiMc^cc — — ccc^ccc^r^Mr»r5 C4 D9« — — ^ M — c*a ^ c^ — — c^c^ ^ — — — M — :i-ss >> s -= -f»CiflCl-»»'-f*X!OOC^C»« — -^SlCl •O — ^*ftrcOi*nr- — ^-r:c:^r^s:ot'-«^^s«w5 — ^ -r -c 00 — — *c ac c: r: -M ri ic — — OS c^noc-r-r^--rlC^^*^«:r jiiCic— T^ococsr^cc «w.S o o°5 -^?icc"'— ^ — — ^^?»?i — c-JC^ N -^ rc^ic^c^iMC^c^c^-rc^ — c^-rMMWccc^c^ec «• •» •» 1 — ir5iC-r'^'^^-cc»c»c»ocs^-r*-r* lo ■^-^iOF-oooo--r*«cc»ftoo— 'cc»o*occt^ooo^o £§ icooc»^«»oooo^'— csccoo-TTr w Cscs-^oot^-^0OcC:cC5-*i-:D^3:-^ffC — ec^oocs i0^^p0U3U3'*CCOO«r-'^»0»0 o O 00 c-i '^ -^ rt c^ »rt Lt r^ CS -r c^ :c •* us n cx*-^ cv)^^-M^^-M^eKjesi^-^^CMC^ •» CS V CS •» «» QS 0} — cqcsiooo^-- — ^^Cic^— o « iniftt^^or^fio-^iftcscccc — Ccccsrct^oocicao e Or^h-iCrcfC-^-Cu^unr^r^-r — c: ^^--. — — re — -r^t-cs4c-rc:csc;^-rr- — »«« -M,^^- ,.iv*.^^-^-.— *-^«'-r-— — ^ 3 — — ^^ ^ ^ CS CM «• •» •» -^ooo^ctcoir*^ — -^r^osi^t^ « oo — tco^o-^cs^^*'^^»csec"*^ccs■^ooe^l*ff'^-. eOiC«ca^ — t^ooto-^— r^-^-^f o> cscsos-^ou'5lC^*'^^noC5ooco— •^c:»«ao— Ol O CI^I--0i:0:C;SCM-r-^OC'^c^W >o ioicc^oo-^:ccs«ooos«^ct«csh-r*cs«iccs^ CCtMMC^C^!MC^rCC^(rjr'JC'lC^C^'M e^ cccccsc^iiM — ricsT-1 — csc'i — cscs — cs^escsc^cs •» «» «» E- C^t^t^t-*C^OcC — »C*«^ — «OiOJ lO eccccorocc — rcc^^ooc:c^:cccc:c;cC'^— t>»'^cr: O ■;:: 4> oi^t^ioooooaic^aooo:c--s ci — -- in .— — icocc-rtoc: — r^ociccsccoo — Gcocio-rtcci u a X n cD-^^toc^cioot^^ — ':^ O — CS CS cc CS U3 iC — !M CM IC CS -r — — « IC ^?c« — c*»«*— ^C'iW — — — rcrc S ** "^ *" "" ■" k. §; <: ^-"■^^reooso5coo»fttoco^-»ooot^ o csT»'Csesr*-«j'C*<»*r*oe^r>.!D'*cs-*ccc«05CC^ O-^-f'^^'^'-in — — «oc^c^w •^ osc^^Dr^-^occ — ooicscsooicc^»fl^-t-air^ecoo J ec^scioccicio — r^oiosooccc^c^ •»r QOosoi-^cscsiOccoc — ec*irit^-^':cc:^--c:oc;cs:c •-tOOOCC- O— cr. t^asCSOOQCOiC^Ce^^a»«OkOcs tcccccoccos "cS — .:r5-^ — ^^35CiM:C(NOOC^O-rf ■o *n c^c^i m ooooooo-^ — OO-^OS-^OOiCOOOlCOCCO: — ooc« w — C :r. OCiCiOCCO^'^T'McCCC o cscst^r*h-aor*tc:cc5:cQOO»oo^tco5000:CiOiC -^i w» — 4 «» w» 2 OOOOOOtO^C^ — -^OtCOCSOiiCOO »o t*cifco;r^csosiccs4ft-*oo»c — oo'*c»ocir>--^ — _ eooaosoi— •-f^t^^csy:;cccc-^oo ^" csu3cs:ci^ci3:--Cic~ci:ccsr**c-.r-^«^r^cst^*c bQ ooic*oc. -^-5 »c to OOOOOBiC^CC — l-»C^C0^O n ooor-cs^Dt-^-^tOcowi-jrccs-r-^iOioooescc^ ?* ^r*dc^^ — ^ ^ CO ^ccco-^ CQ •^ 00^-^ CS — -f N CO — < 4cc^r*>7s0>3cseoa»aoaocsiu7mo>t^(0^or»c«3o^vor»cc ■m Si< ^1 s h>-iO:C*.cor<^:or^ i> > < -♦^ 00 g ^^ ^ ^o r— 1 VALUE AND COST OK WATKK FOK IKUKiATIOX 163 CC CO 00 oo ^ ^ w-^r^c^uocoeooot-.oot^r^irac^oc^iocoO'-'t---*'rt'^toioM^ioooo O -H o o -« oooor^^rcNC^OiOc^»c^C3'^coco'^c^oaooco^iCa5*cr^(^»or^< 35c;oi:ccir-ooc;iciotooooQOOCsoo»o*0'— ■CO'— '—- oo't-ooiooi ^CSOOU^U^-— ■CO'— ' — 00't'OaiOOt^Cl(MOOC'liOC^iOOOOiCiOOC^01;0 — OOCOC^jr^-^Oi ■rr-^'— •u^oot^oo;ooolOOOOiaooOfOOO^D•t'■^35"■^c^Ocoo^^oo^^^-.c»oocoo5l^Oi^-•l^l•'-oo■^u^u^ff^^ ^--^c^^---^^^coe^--*oc^^c^c<^'-^c^^Tt'■»t'0^'rt,(^^c^^^coc^^<^lcoc^M'--co•-lcO'^CN•-^^c^c^(^^coc^ coooooO'-Hio-Tf«:ococoootDr^<£>Qocor^'— '■— 'ci(M^-o^iOir3r--c— '1— i-Mi— I.— ii^^HCM— ••— I— I :o^oooc^'-^Oi^-•^^c>^^^cooococoO'-•03iC:)Oascooococox>^oco^o:ococo■^co■-*'ooc»^*cooo■-r"^r-^lralA '--^c^cs-x;-^cO'*Oic^^CitoooO'-'0000»o^-ooooc^ocDC^llClCC^^c^(^^coMco^--(»^Trc^^o^c-I^- b-r^^ost^'T-rOicooiO'^'-c^t^i^^" -^^C^C^;D-»*'C^Or^X)'*Ti---t^t'-C:it--O^^COOi«— -C^C^C0C^C0O'r^'rt*C^;De05D00C>00C0^0SCftl^OO.^*lO^OO'^'^»«tDOOCOC^>OW03^-H■^'.J*^*C^OMlCCO^^-*^u^tO--COO« l^^^c^c<^co^^t^QOOO•--^1<^^c^c^ot^ox'000^^^*^^'^0'*oo5^^^>.r'-(^^--^co--«cn'^tc^ooc^^c^c^c^^aiM^c^ooo5l«ioaiO^^ Ocot^oo-— '"— '^coooO'— 'C^^c<^•rr:ot^c3000o>coco05^*c»co^*'— "Or^t^*— ■cooo■rt'lirsc»oi'^cot^^-.'— ■^s«^J (»coos^oc^c^0505coM■'^■^cOQOI^'*'OcocooDw^:0'rt'lOC^'£'^-^u^oo-^r^^^oo^>-cocoOM*x>«^oooc^ oocxJOi-— "cococoeo»OlO^^*aooOCTO'-'^-^^c^cofOl0^otoxl^>-^^o:lC^c^^c^c^c^c^4co^Olr^^-.^-.^>.I^oom u5io»c-^iO'^co'*-^«^-r»c»/5*o^«''t'»oioiO'^iocoio-ricioco»ft»ou5W5'-»«iO'r»oco»0'^^iO»oiC'^ • QO^ocoro — oo»oc^^c^co OlOCOpGOlO-rfC^005-,OOs*^OOOOiOCOOOCOOOO-flCiCOOOO^COSC350idOeo "" C^l •^ ^^ ^^ ^^ C^ 'J" ^-1 CI ^-^ •— ■ F^ w^ f-^ c;o>e*>^3;r^(-:rT-csio^in^TroGO»-^or^QOiocQ^<»>otp*--^cococoCNJTrcoinc^jt^yDccooTro>r-SSS .si o a> is »> ^ C8 "^ CO ex: " 2 u.— 164 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 3 O ^ »o c-1 ' • I I I I 1 I I I -^ « 1 . r^ --to*'*'' ^M.i.lii.iii.^H CO^ I I I I I <^»l Ill i-^ t^ 0> I I I I OO til ift coeo I I I I I 00 I I I I I I I I i I ito •» • I 1111 Tr-^-iCiait--i'-fOC^>:OOio--fcooo"50000f:oiCi^QO'^^'^'^coooiOso-r-J"»c*oc^c^'roo CO-**— ^c^iiooocDOiOiooocctO'^Of'^oooooicoioaocoooooooo-r'-raiOOQOC i^oor-»-H'^e»3eoocc-r»«CiC^ ^»c oo»ococ^»o»o^oo»0'^cocO'^oocccoccco'^oo u 3 .s c u I to u O z H U 3 <• Q u a _j & CD "f u, H CO H u D Q Q Z M o CO w O < ^ uw uw w^ O C4 Oi ^ t^ *f-V05CicO*C'-'t^Osai-^»0*-'CO'*t^010-r^ooo505io*c»n — — »o 1 CM C*l ^ O CC C*D ^- ^- e^coe^coc*5c*2CC'^M*'^-»"»o»c»/5»o*o»o»oiou^".OtOcO:ocD50cococDcstDeccc*^r>-r--i-»t*t^t^ »o »c »c rc CO ir5iC"^CO«5iC»'5U5»ftCOeo»C»CCC»CeO*C'*»dC4r5iOPCCC*Ci0^riCift»/5»C*CiC*0*»' ^»J•^^*-■^C*^C^ — *o fc s ^a>^coI^•^lOcooOlOOlco--c^DOOo»^o«oc^ooOM■1•l0^.l«o^^^a>^lO'fO>oo>^^o^oa>oo r^Soo^iccMCMicco03*— u)c^p4in^v-4^lOlC^oo■^oicocoooo5005CiOltooooiC^^*--cc^lcv5^ocl ■^OTp»-O;O-rt0C0C0000000OC0C000OO'--'-HC000-t''^'-Hr-i-rt"05'r}<00O^C^C00^ 'T '^^ ^^ ^^ WJ ^^ "— ' '— ' ^*-' '-*-' ""-^ •— ' ""^ ^T^ •*-' >-'-' t- J '-*-' '"•-' '-''-' '— ' i i.' i'*" '■*-' ^■i-' ■— ' '^ "^ t'J '-*J T" "^ '^ '^ T" 0000»OtD--DCOiOiiOC^Xi'— '00CO^»C co^OI>■ocO'-•"^ocococ*30oo•--cocoo5050':0'--«t^^^^C50coo50i?o■T}'^cOlOlO^*ooa)OOC^oo■^M'u^l0^^cocco^C5'— tco'^'t^'^t^ ^-00(X^C0C0Q0G0W00C000000000<»00C03i0iOiCft0105OiOa>OOOOOOOOOOOOO-H^---HT-^l— .-H.--.-.C^]CO»Or^iCiO»OlCtO«OiOCOfOiO»OiCiOiOiOiO'^U^u0>O»O»O»CiOi^iOCO-^ •— I 1-H "O c:t3 o « ,£3 £■ ■a S o-g 1.S O c« ^ a 166 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES (1} o < u cu V} on Hi O o o H CO z H Hi oi Q Z o H U B o u. o H cfl O U Q Q Z u. o w u O < u > < 1 ;:::::;:::::::;::;;;::; Yield. packed boxes Q0CCC25i00^r^?^O^«CCC^00 con — «MCC^*^C^ — c^-^ Cost of water coco — OOC^JC^C-JOOOi— :ooooo-^^D-^io»o — -^o g CO QO oooo;0:Oc*;oic;-HOO*o»ooocc r^*oos:c^aor*oooo-^c^c^:oo •^OO — -NN05cooooo»rs:c 1 OS osoo>m»ocsr^»OiOOcoooo •» w» e2 00 cc-QOTr*oio-^*rj— — oOGOOOcoeo oooiw — — M-^CiCs-*rcoa=ooo •^CCb* — — l-^MOOQOC^ — — C^lO General expense to o oco»ooo»r;?oc^(Mco*v-"COOOOOi«'»J'00« — -hC>^ !2 1 2 s O — CT>-^'«fOI--^cCiOO:©000»0 ^o»ceoccoooccco»cMC^»ot* to — csMC^cc-^coco — lOic — r^ o iOC^OC0O»C»OiO00OC0t^':C0000OI^CC»00500C000 cocoeccoeocceoeoeoececeopo«eoco«eoeccoeococo 00 00 CO •• C^OO'MC^OC0»0:0C3-^-^f0'^ QOOOOOO— "— COeO'«»*tOU3iO»0 Length of record, years -rio»o»o*rtcoidC*rt»c*«u^»cic»n*cic»o*OM'W5t«'4« ot^u>ooioo^ior^o> GOooK»ooaot^ooooaoooooooooK a It 10 (Cont.) ^-1 1— 1 4 VALUE AND COST OP WATER FOR IRRIGATION 167 8- ^j« — c^ c^ — *— ro ■— ' c^ -• CO CO ^- w ^- c^^ --05osr>-cooou503:0co0»«-^— •"^^co^or^r-— •QOr>-cor^r»oo;ooOd ic r*r*csr-for^--b-coeoic^^«o^ — --coc^ic»n-rao-^t^a5!3iococor* *-• COCOt^' OS -^ -< OtOOr^QOOOO QC»«coot~^cot^u5:c — oor-»c^c^cococ^io — — ^cooo-^coootor-t^c^ csoooot— oocoOsoo:c:C'^CTio*oc^c^c^:Ccococ^o»/?GO^-^ior*r^i^ co^— '— ' — — ri — rocoO — — — ro — c^c^c^c^i— ic^c^fO oc^ -- o c; osoo»-ro6 — osoosoaQoast>-r--osoic40>oooooooocotC"-*ococo^ <£M^00t^00C300at^C0C0CC>0ae0C0C0C0«Ci0000-*t'-Q0O^^C0t^t*00 '— c>^ocooacasoc^c^c^oooc^c^^■-f"^cocooiOi^-^'^^•-'Tp-r»ooooo^ C^C^ — Ol-^— «'^C-c^cocO'«fOcor^QO-- 0000C00sO:D'-'»«i0NC0O»«O — t--o COC^C^C^Tf'-«e^»OC^CONC^W»C^(MCJC^ »c^^co — oOro»fHor--Oioiccoco(MOi;o;oooco«crsosaj:or^co:o t>-co-^Tr — r^!C!-^ooooco<:o-^^-'r-^co-*^^40coor^c:Ococ»^c^i c^O-r:^-^oO'rOcococ^'^CT>OiC:c;cococ^c^c^i>-— (-^j^iMfMcsiOC^io e*3 ^ ^ — ^ ^— cv] ^ ^ ^ ^ icc^ ^ r;o>o>csi'MOO^-r — ^-oOQet>-acoo^-oc^*t'•^-^^oo^ooo^cocl ot'-cooo^ocoirs-^-^-iccoroco — t^troo bc"^ coc-1— 'coc^— ^oot— -r~c>j-*occ — ^^ c«J u .— -I o rt (M 168 DIVISION' OF WATER RESOURCES CQ < a u < a, oi Hi o a: u o H D H UJ a! lU Q 3 7 < «^ C a .J [ u (/) >-H u >^ z z < a; H r 1 D Q O a. b O w H < Depre- ciation ooot^Sio-3Sooooot^Si~So — «ccS5Ss5!boo?ic^ooioSooSo>o 00 •• c ■^ ^H ^ — j*5^ ^ jsi ^ -O ^ C^ C^ CC ^ C^ C^l -^f •• '*C^CCCO^ M C^ -^ CO M "M C^ CC fC CC C^ iC C^ CO X" C^ C^ C^ O -f CO -^ CO CO c^ o CO M General exjiensc US 1 OO00OC0"50iC00ai«(N^'?£^^r^ooo-^c-»c^?^coco^-. «»C^C^C^C^(r»C^I(MC^)C^C^C^C^MC^C^C^»C^C^MClC^C^C^COCCCOCOCOCOCOCO « CO •• Length of record, years tO'^iCU3K3iO^»CiOiO»'5'?"»0'^*0^»CiO»/S»OCO»C«'5>0»CtCCOCO>C»0»ft'«*" CO CI < »OU5»OOiOOOC^t^CO'X>'^«^^COC^"rO>0*t^O'*J«C*«^CO'^^000>»OtOOOTj» ^ ^ ^ CO -- < ' 12 (Cont.) VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION 169 000»050cOCCCCt^»^ — , ^f ^ ^rt ?4 -O TO O (N ■"j'TfCOOOOOCO'l'^^CJO inic-r^j'u^'^ccccioift --0 iO t^ 00 O -M -r CO »— CI C;0>C50>CiddO>0*3i lO .t3 -as •O 3 ^■o if -J s > S op •as 11 TABLE A-1 AVERAGE YIELDS AND RETURNS PER ACRE FOR ORANGES, VENTURA COUNTY, AS SHOWN BY RECORDS OF MATURE GROVES CONSIDERED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE VARIOUS AREAS BY THE FARM ADVISOR AND PACKING-HOUSE MANAGERS. Average yield, .\verag6 Area Serial number LfCnzth of record, years Acreage packed-box returns equivalent to grower' 13 1 5 17.6 350 $1,081 59 2 5 14.0 349 1,064 99 3 5 17.2 483 1,349 67 4 5 12 5 118 286 62 5 5 17.0 107 265 20 6 5 16 9 159 425 34 7 5 13.5 101 256 42 Average 5 15.5 246 $698 27 14 1 5 51.2 346 $1,111 46 2 5 14.2 271 773 19 3 5 28.1 325 1,046 70 4 5 8.7 329 1,080 78 5 5 13.3 266 695 35 6 5 18.6 160 411 93 7 5 6 8. 256 657 15 8 5 12 3 122 322 21 9 5 13.9 160 435 66 10 5 4 4 259 815 12 11 . 5 16.9 460 1,408 53 12 5 19.5 308 820 51 13 5 16.1 206 583 86 14 5 20.0 128 318 59 15 5 26.0 153 468 94 Average 5 18.0 260 $775 75 15 1 5 4.4 472 $1,012 18 2 5 10.3 450 1,025 bO 3 5 10.4 424 811 04 4 5 2.8 357 717 48 ^ 5 5 10.4 360 890 53 6 5 8.6 391 897 80 7 5 5 315 685 09 8 5 17 319 740 8d 9 5 2.4 194 421 82 10 5 4 274 551 27 11 5 4.2 237 589 59 12 5 8.9 315 918 43 13 5 10 268 819 16 14 5 14.6 234 606 13 15 5 7.2 334 1,069 43 16 5 4.6 273 757 34 17 5 56.8 160 423 37 18 6 6.2 258 736 93 19 5 6.8 136 403 72 20 5 18.6 224 664 26 21 6 30 77 249 53 22 6 7 100 308 14 23 6 7 89 300 99 24 6 13 120 330 07 25 6 330 968 07 26 6 5 124 400 12 27 6 25 285 883 35 28 6 7 134 458 86 29 6 5 87 258 98 30 5 22 156 368 70 31 15 273 746 l-S 32 30 222 503 91 33 52 251 638 21 34 15 116 269 47 35 8 453 1,135 81 36 14 302 775 12 37 18 147 324 46 38 2 25.5 273 39 2 10.2 205 40 2 18.6 208 41 2 5 221 42 2 14 209 43 2 18 s 154 44 2 20 78 45 2 7 209 46 2 17 5 187 47 2 10 124 Average 4.9 13.5 219 •$467 57 ' Picking and hauling costs, averaging 10 cents per packed box, not deducted. • Average rcturn.s to growers for serial numbers 1 to 37. inclusive, only. ( 170 ) » .\vcragc for 2 years only. 172 DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES X *^ E o c •* o 2§ a 2^ S> 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 cir-iriiO-r^o»oooc;=3--c — r*-^«-it^c^t^ t^ CCCC— CR'TCC^t^^CJ'^C^I OT •o »ft-^-rO — «'^ — — — 3-^OQOC^cor-. — c^ t^ O'r:cc^-^cc»o»nr^oiccr» U _- S 00 ^ — — ^^ — — »- — — c^ic^cj — c^cjr^MC) !J 2^ j; •Si 2 o X u a cccc^r^<>JCir^^c:-^r3-^t^ooo»«t>-^o 00 CC^CiOCCOOOiO — CClftOO tj ta y -J •g>_£ t— r--'^ < o=l •♦WC'lCCw ri— (M C^W o: a. cccs-rr^^cicito— icr^!r>OTi«-rcaooQOO «-^ ooc^-^ — cir^ooc^O — — O W 2 i 9 iOO00»C-rCl(MC»O»OClt^00iOt-t^-fCC*M 1^ oo^rc-^— oo--rt-toocscs cc c £. o Ci— •c^'^f— « ^-iOic^-^-^-*ct^eo -?'-^ ca c»Ci-^o»oiooo u a\s 4* •» 4» 1^ — u i; « ^ O^ Q-s O a: "5 U u a> O O :£?— ^ -f — cs owy^-^-XJiftoor^occoJOO C3 O ^ to O 00 r^ ■«r Oc^Orccscc-^iO — — cc-^ hj eS o ^*oo woo oo o o o o o ooo O O-^ — w ww-^CCC^ 2 i s g «% «• •» z 1—4 0--'OcDtDCC«-^'— COCiOOOQOOS?CC5-rO 5D ooj-^wr^os- CO-fOI^«iOC^*OOOOOOC^-^iC-^OOt«M CM ^Hi^soO^wOOOCC^OOifl^ft > X rM^^M^^co^^^c^iccco-f'-'wccw-r— ' CM U) A H «» «» •• a; ■& Q 4-) iS z c m o»ccoo:ot^-ft^'^C5t^:o»cOQOTrt^r^w c^ oor-*ccocc»— c^iior^Qocc xn iz; o it ocot^ccc^r-or^:o--ooooosww-rO'rio cc OC^O»OC5C^C^— ^OOCICCOS '«*'-H-^roO"^Ow^rca:oooo ^ n «»w '-^c^^-Ciccr^ — 'C^j w c< o C^»OCC^H':OC£?iOOC7sC^r^iO»OCOO oo CJOtOr^OCcD-^OM — 00t»«O» PQ z' 2 H o §1 2S£ ^ *% — — — «• •♦ w- -^ —' H ooco**'cot-cx>r"-cooO!:0'rfooo?ot^tD-^rt-^ Ci O'C-'J'OSOOCSC^CDiOC^OOO 3 Q .2 >. "3 OlCC00w*wOw:SOiCMOC00000»0Ow cc cc-^tx>-^«'<*«r^oocaooiO yA '(m i^t^io-^cc^wsoaiiooipowMicw^sso r^ C»o»cc^c^«rcO00c^c^:2 OOr^wOSO(M t^ cicocCJ»c«o»c'C5C'rCir^o pq < x.ti is iC '- > ^ c «» «• — • Eh C^I>i CO o c/5 ^^ ^^ ^ ' ■ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^"" • ' ^^ ■*^ '•^ ^^ ^a^ Km 9 y*^n ^*^ ^^ ^ • "^^ «» O t* < ■St"" f 2S io»o-**cc>c>C'^^c»'5ic-r»o»c»c»c»c»r;'^o -*' lOiO-^iCi^^CiOiCifliCiOiC 3 Q 3£ c 4j ej o > Q Z CO U5*-«'^Ol'^OOC^wOOO' < > < CO y ■22 8 >> £g — u < o es T-H c^ Ui u V ^ ^ Jl t-i H "J oc 5 VALUE AND COST OK WATEK FOB IRRIGATION" / ■> 00 00 « •• §;;:;;:: ;S 2 ; : i ; i ; i ;g « « so •*• s M 1 1 1 .C4 1 • • ivM :2S2 1^ 18 56 59 83 33 10 CM ♦»^^^«CM— ^-.^(M CO — Cvl — CM — C^'M — C-I-. — — — CMN^CCCM ^-^icM^CMCoSw^-H^ ?Oi«CMr*CM^--03c»50oocMcoocMt^os5SccoocoocMr*t*cc^H»or^ioOeocso>:o^eoc30io>eocoo*^ «5eMiO^Tr»'-«^"^--'CMOO»^0«OOCMt*CMO»0^^;Dt-*^NCMC^i«Or^M-^U5iOCCOi:OOSI^CMOOOOO:0 '^'~*"'"*Orcrc»— --oo:D«Occoo;OoOiCCMcoCM^C'»t^o-*ciooocsc-iai:Oco»cooOcciO-»'co-^-*oO'— • CMccccoo : osoo t^ CO-^OOOOOtfiOCMCM '«*«:0:OCMX!aOCMr-»0 Ci fC ^ CM CM OO C*3^^ too _-. — > -H CM O — ( i-t r^-cc-foocMCiioaoc-icitcoo— '^-o^^sGOrocoos— lo— cir-u^CM — 0-^0--fOQO-^c-iooc-»:cc-i-roi35 c©cMool0^^oo^-•^c•-rc^"^«^QOCs^c^*:c)CMCMoo^*ocMODlOcccc■^cM^-•rco-^oo•-r-rcMcc35lOOCsQO CM■-r^»Tr^^COCM^*CMC:■^-r:OC^IOOeC'^'--'CCCMCS"^^-.^-CC^OOOOOCOOC^JC»'— |-^00u^CO^^00rC--CnC^^I-- CMcC-^CMC^'--«CMC>^'— C^C>JCMCMCM-^C^C^CMCC^-'-'Tf'«-HCMCMW5'--CC'--tCMCM»-'COC^C-JC"*CMCM>-.t--t--.CMoo-T — t^f<:-rocMOOiiot--'^o«:;^oocMioiO'^oocccM — ■rr-^'^tO'^csi^io — c^oou5t^oicooO'-''-'QOCM-Hiocc"^::ot^ccO'— cn^lJr^c*?c^^CM-clOooooooGO — lo C500 — -"•— ■C'iCMcccc-t'-^'^-n--t'"^"^u^iOkC^-j:;:^:o--0!r>r--t--t-*r--ooooooGoaici05Ci;rsoooooc;^---— « Cir^M C^ --!.— i^-,— ,-!— .— -^-— . — — — .— — — I,-. — — I — ^-^-.— I — ^-^-1— I — ^-^-.— I.— 1,— (t-H^-^-C-ICMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM iCiOift"3^»Ci^U^iC^O»0»C-^u^"^-r'^i^iO'Tt'iO»0'^iCiCU^»C — iO'^iO»C«J0iCtOiO»O»CiO»0iCiCiCiO •r torn d >CCOiOCO-rQ035CM^-»OCOCOU5U5'^»0'^OeO?0»COOOOOCCCOO»0?Oi/5i:0»OC^I-J'iC'^C^O:0000-f:DO V ^ iOI^-,C40 — 00CMO3l00t~OC0G0C7iCr)O--«5OCC':-C'lC^MI^iC — OOCroOOOOai(^QOCMOCX)---'rj.-rCJC^l ^^CO — — CI^C^l — ore — — CM — -M — — OCM'-«0-?'Cr — — — CO-rfOCMC^lCOCM — — — C*5 — CM — -f-r-t* -r CO — -o S.5 O es ^ c 174 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES •o V 3 C 'w C a Z o u .J CQ U -J 03 < < u a, b: u O b: o o H w z h u Q z < z o H U Q O & (I. O CO H t« O U Q Z • t CO > ' t ; i ;::: ;S§ ;;: i :: i i :;: i ;::::;;:::;::; is i ; ; i : i i i ; i* : i i ; ; i i i i i : i ; : i i : i : i i i i i i : i"" : i i Yield. packed boxes h iS O o > c s J S ;;K25^ SSSS «3 ^~n?i^^ Sfg^SS SS2SSS ec o — 00 ^ o « (M — -^ s — — — o c; — — — — rr — o — ^Occ -- ^ -^ 93 a> s *c5 222?ji5g«SIS?2S:5J5;555SSSSS5ggf:Sg{^SSSSSSg§g§§ o i io»rt*ntn»otrtio«Of5ic»'ttn»«tOt««'^t«'^io»cmicicio»o*drt'^*cio-ru3ift»«eoi«'*'r •< io;o«oooo50oieiO!Oi«'«'*»«ot^oit^«oc^t^tcoooo-r-«'C-. t^ = aoi^r-oso>s^e>m» CC« — c>5 — — — — — —1 ig«5=ispiS55?2|SS=s=i«fillSsiSfs§iiS§§ < L-3 (Cont.) VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION" 175 »c — CO r- CO to o I "O *«r«c«oo*«toaoc>AiAescO(OeoaooO'<<**'9t'>00-^'^9ac90>c49»oO'«co '^ccr*eoc900c*5M»c»ooccio»««or^t*0«OQMt*ooc*c^co*OMQOui-*r-*c^^eON'^»o^i — r*io»oc>iaQOt^oooioo»QOaar»^oo^eo«0^0^*c*^»'0^'r*QOroo — ^-c^o40aoo»o — *«r--sosr*»ooecoS'^aoto»flC^oo^e>»r»«or>«coOh»c-iiccc^"'^c^^cor^*o-^3acc»ft c^fcc^c^ — c^r^T^; :*oc^c^tO'^--Omc^'»"»occ — re — icrc».'5i«tc-^'^'*i'-ooiC*ct— »oc->^ «W'^ooc^co»occac-^i^w5oo • — re -r -^ ^ 1 O iO »cc^»«t>-c*)t>-c>ioo»(e:cc^c^s^'!;5QCCsororeiMC:c:icO'Vic»C!Oc^niC'vaO'^^ri« — 00 o I Odicc;aoicr-*~^rocac— lO^-eoc^ — r^nocr:oore?^rere»^xt~^c-)nooc^O — QC*/5 — 00 00 « -v r>. 5C 00 1^ — — r^ c^ c^ c^ ooeecec^»«— ce ccr^'— ce^cocreoiMt^'^oocsoO'VOoo^c^c^jictc — CiCi-^O-^t^re is ■* oc ce 5 oc 39 Tp Ci c^ re cc « O ?e c: :r -^ '^ ce « oc - Qposeoo^Ctcos-^ecr^c^oc^c^^ocs^fttOMCMscOMW^cDCsc^^cCcerire^o-^r^csooo Outc:i«c:cet^'*t^t£Sfec^r^ — ooo^c^— ■^icooooi~*r^ooceci-^r-os-^'«rc3*^t>. — -^f ascetc«« — eececec^'^c^ce — r^'^r-'^'^«ooos^^Ocs'^Ci-^t^oor^:oooi.'5t^:oor^-^« ■^ic^»":su3»o:£:cooi«t^:oi«i«!:0s^ioiow5^-t^oot^ce»c=cr^:ocs4ow3'^oc-^ai4or>-c5r^ O ! O«'«*'00oec^0»ccs*rnc::c^r'; «5 [ >«oocsc:-«rr^3CO:ricrec;-^: OD 1 ^ ' CiCi^-rereoocoo — — "*r — — uerecco — — — — r^-^T^ic;;^ o ! — CiCs::C3soc;£c;— — — — ce— oc — ooo^reococ — — re-^'^'Cioore — 3C-— n — •^■^re; — — c^ re -r r^ OS c« I r*cit^c=cs^"OCOc^c^rei«c^e^c^cekftt^ooocc:S'— ceift:oooooc^i-'iiO»Ou'5;Ch» c^ I ceM-^oococsssicrOOO — — — —■•— — ^-'-• — — c^c^c^c^c^csccrerecererecoccfe 00 C5 — re ce ■* 01 (M CN| -r iC *C »ft iC ^" U5 **ce»eu5^'re'^icre^*ciCic»/5'^'if5'^"^'^»o\oicii^ic^"ir?ce"Di«ic^j'ioo»c»C'^tO'^'»« r- CO 00 us CO ic r« ec oao C ce ■«»■ c; 5 • — ^« O ^^ r-- o ; = 00 JitJ 'Z S g. I CsCdt^-vcs^^Ciacr^C — — r- — — O^^wsOXJ-v— re — acre"«f:c^ 50:£ — — — iCt^t^ t^ r- h^ ;c ^ — t^icce — — re— 'C^ — »c?et^t~*— oi-^:c oo 00 oc r>» ^ :s :s I — 3 O u 1.S S a 176 DIVISIOX OF WATER RESOURCES < U) u & CO o: o o o H z H b: Q z <: Q U J 1 S w Z o u Z o H U D Q O a. u. o CO H g Q u. o CO w O c to grower* ::;::::• ■ s : ' : :§ : ■ ; I i : I I : : : ; ; ; i : i is i i i : i : : i i i :g : : i : i i i i i i i i ' ' ' ' • ■ . . . . . , ' t < t 1 1 t 1 1 I t Yield, 1)0X68 Cost of water s s > a Q 5 s 1 1-^ 3Q V M OS 11 SI C S $11 25 12 :i2 30 Ot 15 07 13 70 8 08 30 82 3 18 2 50 11 07 10 05 14 :« 10 81 8 42 (1 20 17 42 .52 40 23 5(1 13 03 3 05 43 75 1) 01) U) 34 13 05 13 81) 22 3(1 21 37 11) 21) 30 00 41 52 4 40 20 10 13 01 11 .55 20 8(1 22 5!) 17 64 112 00 8 78 1 SS ■J OMOrc — rcc*jr^r:'v.^r^rc»c..r:s:c*cc^r? — :c — rcor.^ — — c^r*C5C:3C.«r — 3CO— :CiO 03— — t^».^ — 3Ci^:c— — 3C — 3C3C:sc:ocac*.'tciaccc^3;rC3C— acocac:^ — ,--rt — r:ooo "a i r-00-* — oao:ccsicoocrc3-^c^c->c:c;'*nr^ — r^oc — c^ — rjcis^j — — t^riocrccsooo 5 o r3C^!:cw5r^»ooooooo»ncccor>-oocct^OC5c^c^c*flco»0'^»o>or^ccr*50fo-*ffrr*cD!Oc^c^ooc^ c^c^^c^c^^^c^»r^?^c>^(^>MC>^c^c^^^<^^(^^c^?^^^^(^^c^^c^^^»^^^<^^c^^^c^c^c^C'^^rr^?^?^c^c?crr^e Length of record, years W5-^»Ci«»C'*iC»C»C*0»ft»0»OC*3iOCC»C*C»C«C»C»C»rt>n*«"^'*'^»0»C»C»C»«»C-^'*ift'^iftu^ < — — _.— 2 ~ " "2 * "* ~ '^^ « — 00 — « — Serial number i -< L-4 (Cont.) VALUE AND COST OF WATBR FOR IRKIOATION 177 ! I I 1 : ;S j ; : ; ; ; : : : ; ; 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 c^c*5 — c^««roroiMccc'ic^c^ir?c^'*'CMC^ oo Mus^eo-^r-^o — o — ro-^r — ^ — »«a> ^ —^— .«ri — — "/r^ — — — — -M- CM s CM — CM CO -co CM 5 CI tCcDO— Orc*c:Oro — CO — 00 — »OT^00»O OO *ooooo?oi^oiOt^oocMr^ast^ — eoiocft ci'^CM^^CMOor^oocieDmt-.oo^ooasooto CMeOCM*OCMsO-^W5CM — iCrt-VOi-^OO — CM cocM«««CMO:'t--ooect— '-c^cot^ — rocj r^^^-^ftoco— co'^oooc^t^cooO'^iCTfirs-^r o CO CM 4» CO CM « yD -* iO lO — t^COO »c » x> -* CO t^ CO o :o CO — CM — C^l CM CM CM o CO — « :oc^ r^ ^ oc QO r^50 ^ cc oo c^cscssmci-^ •^ re I-" »o r* « ao :o :c »o Cft »o -^ o cs c^ cc to to oool'-— -^t^tcco — »c:ciCMr-roco35:0'^ OiOOC?50lTj«t^Tj<-^— OlCC-^'^fOOOrCCM OW — OiO— CMCM-^OSiOCOCMOr-CMOSCD «• ^H CMecCO-^ CM — — CM CM -^CM b^ o OS CM CM ■^ 00 O kO »0 •*!« UD CO "Tp o O to :0 OS O CO U5 CO t^ CO CO CO lO CD CO :o as u^ r^ s «• ■XI oO':>>t--oicootOic:ooocc — "^i>-r^c^iroo CO 00 CO OS «» oo CO OS — '^f o -^ O 00 — t- 1^ CO — lO tiC CO 00 M* -^ CO OS OS OS lOO — CO «» ^ ^ ^ _. * oo 4» CMa^oco'^'^-^ooootc-^roocc — oij^ — o o OS o CO OS -^ CM r^ CM OS rf — h* '«*' 1^ — CM CO CM ini^ -^ »0 "* CM CD IC CO 00 CO C^ - 555KS?-'s??Jj?S^5sS5£S§ o (M CM--o^^^TCTsci^c^^oociw^oO'«*'^-ol^o■^t^ — — '^rot^:jsrccoiOOO'*roooccy::OOio cOinurjt-'^fOi — ■^roorou':) — — t^to — OCM CMOOO — "^-^t^tci^o^or-t-oocs- CMI^OOCS ^^^CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMdrOTOnfOCO <* ■— OS Ci O 't* Oi lO lO lO CO — »0 OS »o CC r>- 1^ — ' CM CD 00 t--^ coos — — -^ — CM CM C-J CO CO CO CO r- giiSBsiieisiisSisi^ »cio»oic»o^»C'»'»0'^»CiOic»OTt"uD^r^co 5D •^ '^U5'^'»»'rO»«».'5uti»OiOtC-^«C»OtCiO"^»0 CO »/5 tC »C n^ »0 lO CO b- ^02f^3='«^'^^*'5'^^CO»OC200tOOO»0 00 CM ■^w^oooeoocMcoOcoooos-^eoosOioo o oooooo ^ 00 OSOS-^OCM^ CO o CM 5giiiiiiiKiiii«ig5l 0) -< OOCMl^r^CDcO- ffOCMOOiOTTtOClTPOOOOi Oi — OS — O— OOt^COCMC — CiOOOOOt^Ol t^oot^oooooor-t^oooooooot-oot-(^i^t^ s > OS O iC oo t^ CO '«»• CO ^* CO CO CO CO CO OS OS Oi OS O; Oi OS cz < L-4 (Coiit.) Hi 1 .-o e-o 1| = ;» s •a S3 •o-g 1.S O C3 P 12—3985 178 Dm.^ION OF WATER RESOURCES TABLE B-1 AVERAGE YIELDS AND RETURNS PER ACRE FOR LEMONS, VENTURA COUNTY, AS SHOWN BY RECORDS OF MATURE GROVES CONSIDERED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE VARIOUS AREAS BY THE FARM ADVISOR AND PACKING-HOUSE NL\NAGERS. .\rea Serial number Length of records, years .\creage Yield, packed- box equiraleot' Percentage to by-products plant .Average returns to grower = L-6 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ( 5 1 i 5 5 i i 5 i i i i i ) ) J ; 47 27.8 7.9 5 6.8 14.3 35.5 4.9 5.8 1.7 7.2 9 9.8 12.2 6.5 3.6 5.4 2.1 2.2 23.7 16 9 14.8 13.0 67.1 8.9 12.0 22.9 9.0 309 269 165 193 290 91 195 274 161 246 85 186 339 216 222 68 174 214 332 201 326 190 294 181 328 188 193 364 $1,151 90 1.051 95 576 31 725 75 686 83 253 54 690 66 916 36 637 48 915 27 243 42 665 92 1.349 07 850 03 861 42 203 03 654 73 668 90 664 79 748 84 1.138 46 543 09 1.163 35 591 99 1.054 56 579 40 630 45 1.220 33 , .\verage-.- 6 14 226 12.38 $793 68 L-T 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 7 7 7 t 7 1 7 7 37.9 37.2 22.9 4.8 4.2 5.1 20.5 6.0 10 1 14 3 35.2 13.9 131 204 306 247 151 270 275 305 203 216 292 112 $368 57 567 96 953 83 733 01 445 64 763 47 769 39 831 68 533 08 617 93 808 89 323 24 Average.-. 7 17.5 223 12.74 $632 59 ' Includes fruit sold loose and fruit sent to by-products plant, all on a packed-box basis. ' Pickine and hauling costs, averaging about 45 cents per packed box, not deducted. VALUE AND COST OP WATER FOR IRRIGATION 179 U u c -J UJ ■w a U u 5J T X f? v; E V C c Z « O z 5 is Q-3 «• ^ r: ^ M ^ ^ -c ^ ^ ^M(M ^ o 09 a 33 O o Material' c^oOM^^eoooooci»r^cil«^-QOt^(^^^^0<^^■<»•cst^lC — r*t^C!OOtO(MOTroo 00 00 13 U5 »c?^rc^^^J'»c^**»/5«ol'^»'»J^iO»0»c«5ici^cc^iOro»0'^cc»rttrt»rtu^i^ic^'»f3 C^aOi'7C^:OiAO-V^U300CCU9«O^C^t^OO'<1*(OtO-riOC^tCOe4tOU3tCCO^<<««-^ •gs 03 2 t^ »0 »^ t^ :0 r^ lO t^ oo "fs a a s. 180 mVISIOX OF WATER RESOURCES OQ H Hi 1^ > Q nil E-t % u (C en; U u > < c ■ ) K U u a > w i> OS . UJ NN >" u C 7. ^ ft) 5 a 3 «-> Q S a. JC a. 4-1 u. E o i y> f H o ?5 C u CO ^ (7- D Q > 1^ >^ Q Z ■8 i-M 4> u. a O X ^ O) c u < ^ Qi lU CO > <: (0 •n < I z o S c , cS°| a-s ■^ — O rc i^r uo »c ic t- oc — '^^ r*; -r-i c; *c 3 ic ^H 50 ^ n — — — 3C — --c; r- — — n oc — rjir^-^-o^c— ■■^c^ioo^j'35 — c*4ooooo s O CO oo O oo O C0Q0»O ' o -^ .—1 t ^^-H »-< t a; £• roc^c^^*c^c^ccccrcccotcrcr*:^^»'»o^* — — re cc : jncjiOiC — !M-^c^w o = s =» S f " > a 2^ eg eco:©cs4«ccc^ot^»c-HC« c^?q'r^rce^c^'MC^««ccMC^rtc»ic^rcco ooooo — c •-c*«eo'^»ccor^QOOso — c^co-^^cot^Qo re lO — -^ — -^ ^J" o«c^Mocc^c^ccco«ccM»^roro».'5 S" B a .5 c ■22 51 VALUE AND COST OF WATKR FOR IRRIGATION 181 C"T»c^'»cc ' — ^^ 'T rcto^-^r^i^icr* — « « cs "^ i c^ 3a 1:0 CC 00 C^ Oi t^" ' ^ o e^ 01 cc c «0 C^ -^ »C — C» 0» C^ PC ', . — , 4* I •• ooao»oc*ss«'«'OCcc'*"M — ^oooc5fOMaaco«os ~ 09cofct^cr>?o^-oo«cooo«ooooicoo^'kCi'dOcor^«oaor^csudi** «O»OaC0C^-C^^f:DC:CO»CC^^ — 0Docc*COoor^!M :c ex; fcc • — . c^ •c CM CO oe — c^t^or^-'^r^CMOOoooto - S — C^CM 2g5:s . 00 OS •^f CO 00 04 1 .i9< — ^ C^C&« CO s OCfl — ec oc ■»»' re 00 :5SS CO M ' • s s — «» C*? 00 00 « ■* — r^ __ __ ■^ -^r -^r l!7 "«r 'T) :c c^ ^1 r^ re *c »c CI Ci -^ — m .* ce — oci^r^cre — e^ *n -*o —00 — ,« »'3 "7 i-e :cc^ ^ ri *n r- cr; tc -^r — : ■V cs ^ re ce ;s ;c; w re iC ■^ooaooo — ooueueooot^ GO ^- -H ;:* -*»" iC ■^ t* re cs-^oc oc 00 crs — 30 r; ».': -^ — — 3C C5 lOOO :C CM — ^J« h- »r2 — -^ ce r* -*-. 3; to — occo-fcecDO 00 CO 00 — C^l »r* — -*^ -^ -" in .^ C^ M — ^ CM CM CM — — rj CM CM CMr^CMCMCMCMCMCMCM •» «» «* — :C ■;oao ss , c^jccc^io-^t-oc-^oco-for^^--^ — 1^1^ CM 00 -^ r^t^C5i^=;ee=ocM ■^ t^ r^ r- cs . re — 00 00 CO c: r^ c>i — 00 Tf" •-j: rp 35 c ■"T^WiOOI^CCOOiCCMkO!© _ ««30 oocsi^oocM'^'t-.iriQO'^CMTrc^Decsoooooo-^Oi » C^:C "^ 00 C-JCOOO :© Ci — -^ce cs — -^0000 » — 00 wt 00 -^ ueci-vrjt^cer^CM CO TP cto»o»o»c :o — CMCOCS^ eo — — c; 00 iC 3 -v — c; oc c; h- •VK * re ~ .^ .^ ^^ t^ ^V) IN. :C n — ; — iC ci^oooe — uetocs «c) — ce C5CM rs CMCMCM — CMcecMre-v CM — CM CM CM •» «» •» c^ — • M — — c^ e^ »« — ca « cc c^ ^■1 =-. ■♦ ec ^ -^ t^ f) — C- ur — _ ccrr « ao t^ -T — -^ r? oc 00 f- re T-J M eo c; ' c^ ■«■ re -T rt — — •» •sst-eocit.er-oooo^'c:;— 'i.ec= — »-e — — i«^«'C5*9'ocrj — occMtct'-retc — cnooo o |ocreooo:c3su5 — acociO ni : — — :caoce — »nretcr^^ooo3:c — — dCM^pcMt'-cor— t~-ceiCooceceCM~ceoo^^ | ^ j ooosrer^-^cc-^^^CM^Cicr^ I — cece"i-vue*Mrere»-ei-e»C'<»'cei-ocMcerecMce-vicic»c»ccM'a II 1 ■^ t^O o _ O t- Gross incom to growe — oo o r* CJ :0 00 w^ C^l ^ 4* •» oor^c^ to •o-f 05CQ Oi o 00 -N OS o. «-• CS o 5 •-* •-• >* i. ooco« o OCMCO o Cost of wBtei CI — oa ^^ «» «» OOO 1^ c^ £.2 OS 3> «» C4 «» Q-5 f ' ^^co oo t> .MOl CO ' «* n o 3 •» S *-■ t^'^CO o ^ -^ 30 0> O X 00 CO-H o> c4 — — • « H «» •» 03 1 C3 cooro 05 — c. o-^o 00 O) CO «D W5 •^ C9 «• •» > O lO-^ U5 fe -<»« OJt^ « i ^^ OS-^ »/5 n CI C) C^ C^l «e «« _-_ c^oo w r^ "es •^O 05 ^r — c^ «* M C3 S O 00 oo IM cc CO to o CO CC CO ^^ ■V CD r^ to «* «* ngth ecord, ears eo-^w o n JJ:^ o |Si »o c^ 2 2 CO »^ f^ ci 5 £ — CJ CO >n ^ a CO 00 CO 0) I'-. i-*oo Si) 4) T ■I < ^ X ■*» c ? o U > ^ •^ o .■ c ^ 3 T3 OO ^ X 0. Ill " " " 3 1 VALUE AND COST OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION i8;j Eh Z O H Z > O o u a z < o H z l-H (0 H z 1-1 m PQ ffl b O o: o < u (« H W O U <: 3 Z z <: Id u > 3 e O — vr J 11 la's 2 3 O o a o. ooooomooio ■rf-^-fOOOOOOOOOOOO as ■ssg o o O C o OX! «5 u a ^ i» a; O o-a ooooooooo .a a C9 A 00000 10 oc;»o oOio^oi^oor- «50t^»oorotooco •» « — M C^ •OO Q u U -- H IS <3s §1 M zz: c o £« :2S eg » > a=-o to o - II OJ 00 |se=; d o cs fc, *-: I— •» «» CO o Hg. «-s- 1 3 O i £oS 5 d O i BO m 3 J3 (2 IS |£o§g us o W5 CO o 72 laj s s o o o< fK.— ^ •» «» CO O 60 « ,H 0.2-. -a ' QOOOO to IC »c *o »o o CO > aO TT =^ 5. S °- o o O O 'S •» «* •» 2 K S « c 1 c c3 5 .c ooooo o o s. 'lZ ooooo c^ o a> 0) O O I-- C-J C^l CO CO Ph c3 lOiO ■»»• 1* -^ ■^ CO S 0) «* «» 4« 5 .2 a 1 1 Im ooooo o o _2 "■5 ooooo W5 --0 :C! r^ -"T oo oo o u5 tou:) .V CO -^r CM 1 «* «» «• ^ us »o o 05 OS o^ oo o CO '^ » t.lM ooooo 00 o £i S . o o o M&3 o ^ «» «» *» U3 o oo in CM ui »c O ■<»• o5 »0 :0 CO t^ 3 »o C _ —. ^- — I .— > ^M 1-H ^C8 1 .-^ J (A O (M »0 O >C ■'f t* CO s O C>I -^ -^ »0 -M CO o 03 "S ^ tm a O O -^ Cvj — »0 O CO m -M »0 O 04 iC a Ss OO 00 O -i " CM — '(N — ' J' '5 ^» tf) Q CS -^ CO ^C- CQ O CO OlOO CS iO , oo w CO CM I-: OJ ^ a z 3 C M O oo CO r- ;d J V K O u? ^ <^ ?0 a ^CMCM c^^c^ 1 e2 o o oo c^ to kC CO 2> is O 1^ -^ !•- U5 ^ W3 00 0) a as « f^ » ■*» ■s O tC O OS OCO Ooo osooGO :o _ OCi k. *" 1 |:siJ-f O '<4< CO »0 CO CO o lo lO trs '« c^ t^ Tt< ^4 ^^ ,-M •— < ^N *-t ^f ^ir^ 1 o 1 c ■^ ! ! ! I I v^ J" CO ,- a< cfe r-00 oio ^ li CM O "M C^l C^ CO CO OS OS ca OS OS OS OS ■^ — • -^ 1 -3 o O r.. frt O V faijc: •< ■*^ o c en id n d. Q s*- < 4J L. V> s y. ^ =1 •i-H 3 ,„ — 3 CQ L. 4) O CQ •- o ■8 O .2 3 or" o eo CO 2 5 "S „-B . " 2 « a -o ..O U3 o S «) Mrj a U-'C^ • »: . C >> " •- .1-1111 ijs » 5 « .-- m k. o ^ £ c o ciS 5so'-ig tssaa PUBLICATIONS DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PUBLICATIONS OF THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STATE OF CALIFORNIA When the Department of Public Works was created In July. 1921. the State Water Comtnlsilon was succeeded by the Division of Water Rights, and the Department of Englneerlns was succeeded by the Division of Engineer- ing and Irrigation in all duties eicept those pertaining to Slate Architect. Both the Dlrtslon of Water Rights and the Division of Engineering and Irrigation functioned until August. 192 9. 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 — Hydropraphic 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— Preliminary 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). Bulletin No. 7— Use of water from Kings 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 Engineering, 1907-1908. •Biennial Report, Department of Engineering, 1908-1910. •Biennial Report, Department of Engineering, 1910-1912. •Biennial Report, Department of Engineering, 1912-1914. •Biennial Report, 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 may be borrowed by your local library from the California State Library at Sacramento. California. (187) 188 LIST OF PUBLICATIOXS DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Including Reports of the Former Division of Engineering and Irrigation "Bulletin No. 1 — California Irrigation District Laws. 1921 (now obsolete). •Bulletin No. 2 — Formation of Irrigation Districts, Issuance of Bonds, etc., 1922 Bulletin No. 3 — Water Resources of Tulare County and Their Utilization, 1922. Bulletin No. 4 — Water Resources of California, 1923. Bulletin No. 5— Flow In California Streams, 1923. Bulletin No. 6 — Irrigation Requirements of California Lands, 1923. •Bulletin No. 7 — California Irrigation District Laws, 1923 (now obsolete). •Bulletin No. 8 — Cost of Water to Irrigators in California. 1925. Bulletin No. 9 — Supplemental Report on Water Resources of California, 1925. •Bulletin No. 10 — California Irrigation District Laws, 1925 (now obsolete). Bulletin No. 11 — Ground Water Resources of Southern San Joaquin Valley. 1927. Bulletin No. 12 — Summary Report on the Water Resources of California and a Coor- dinated Plan for Their Development. 1927. Bulletin No. 13 — The Development of the Upper Sacramento River, containing U. S R. S. Cooperative Report on Iron Canyon Project, 1927. Bulletin No. 14 — The Control of Floods by Reservoirs. 1928. •Bulletin No. 18 — California Irrigation District Laws, 1927 (now obsole'te). •Bulletin No. 18-A — California Irrigation District Laws, 1929 Revision (now obsolete). Bulletin No. 18-B — California Irrigation District Laws, 1931 Revision (now obsolete). Bulletin No. 18-C — California Irrigation District Laws, 1933 Revision. Bulletin No. 19 — Santa Ana Investigation, Flood Control and Conservation (with packet of maps). 192S. Bulletin No. 20 — Kennett Reservoir Development, an Analysis of Methods and Extent of Financing by Electric Power Revenue, 1929. Bulletin No. 21 — Irrigation Districts in California. 1929. Bulletin No. 21-A — Report on Irrigation Districts in California for the Year 1929. Bulletin No. 21-B — Report on Irrigation Districts in California for the Year 1930. Bulletin No. 21-C — Report on Irrigation Districts in California for the Year 1931. (Mimeographed.) Bulletin No. 21-D — Report on Irrigation Districts in California for the Year 1932. (Mimeographed.) Bulletin No. 22 — Report on Salt Water Barrier (two volumes). 1929. Bulletin No. 23 — Report of Sacramento-San Joaquin Water Sujiervisor, 1924-1928. Bulletin No. 24 — A Proposed Major Development on American River, 1929. Bulletin No. 25 — Report to Legislature of 1931 on State Water Plan, 1930. Bulletin No. 26 — Sacramento River Bai>in, 1931. Bulletin No. 27 — Variation and Control of Salinity in Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Upper San Francisco Bay, 1931. Bulletin No. 28 — Economic Aspects of a Salt Water Barrier Below Confluence of Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, 1931. Bulletin No. 28-A — Industrial Survey of Upper San Francisco Bay Area. 1930. Bulletin No. 31 — Santa Ana River Basin, 1930. Bulletin No. 32 — South Coastal Basin, a Cooperative Symposium. 1930. Bulletin No. 33 — Rainfall Penetration and Consumptive Use of Water In Santa Ana River Valley and Coastal Plain, 1930. Bulletin No. 34 — Permissible Annual Charges for Irrigation Water In Upper San Joaquin Valley. 1930. Bulletin No. 35 — Permissible Economic Rate of Irrigation Development in California. 1930. Bulletin No. 36 — Cost of Irrigation Water in California, 1930. Bulletin No. 37 — Financial and General Data Pertaining to Irrigation, Reclamation and Other Public Districts in California, 1930. Bulletin No. 38 — Report of Kings River Water Master for the period 1918-1930. Bulletin No. 39 — South Coastal Basin Investigation, Records of Ground Water Levels at Wells, 1932. Bulletin No. 40 — South Coastal Basin Investigation, Quality of Irrigation Waters, 1933. Bulletin No. 41— Pit River Investigation, 1933. Bulletin No. 42— Santa Clara Investigation, 1933. • Report! and nullotins out of print. These may be borrowed by your local library from the Culifornia State Library at Saornmento. California. LIST 01-' ITllIJCATIONS ISI) Bulletin No. 43 — Value and Coat of Water for Irrigratlon in Coastal Plain of Soulli- ern California, 1933. Bulletin No. 44 — Water Losses Under Natural Conditions from Wot Area.s in Southern California, 1933. Biennial Report, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, 1920-1922. Biennial Report, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, 1922-1924. Biennial Report, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, 1924-192C. Biennial Report, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, 1926-1928. PAIV1PHLETS Act Governing Supervision of Dams in California, with Revised Rules and Regula- tions, 1933. Water Commission Act with Amendments Thereto, 1933. Rules, Regulations and Information Pertaining to Appropriation of Water in Cali- fornia, 1933. Rules and Regulations Governing the Determination of Rights to Use of Water In Accordance with the Water Commission Act. 1925. Tables of Discharge for Parshall Measuring Flumes. 1928. General Plans, Specifications and Bills of Material for Six and Nine Inch Parshall Mea.suring Flumes. 1930. COOPERATIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS •Report of the Conservation Commission of California, 1912. •Irrigation Resources of California and Their Utilization (Bui. 254. Office of Exp U. S. D. A.) 1913. •Report, State Water Problems Conference, November 25, 1916» •Report on Pit River Basin. April. 1915. •Report on Lower Pit River Project, July, 1915. •Report on Iron Canyon Project, 1914. •Report on Iron Canyon Project, California, May, 1920. ♦Sacramento Flood Control Project (Revised Plans), 1925. Report of Commission Appointed to Investigate Causes Leading to the Failure of St. Francis Dam, 1S2S. Report of the California Joint Federal-State Water Resources Commission. 1930. Conclusions and Recommendations of the Report of the California Irrigation and Reclamation Financing and Refinancing Commission, 1930. •Report of California Water Resources Commission to the Governor of California on State Water Plan. 1932. •Booklet of Information on California and the State Water Plan Prepared for United States House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Appro- priations, 1931. •Bulletin on Great Central Valley Project of State Water Plan of California Prepared for United States Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclama- tion, 1932. • Reports and Bulletins out of print. These may be borrowed by your local library from the Calirornla State Library at Sacramento. California. 3985 1-34 IM i]^'H i-)r'.: ■■i;.'>v- ^^m0 ^'^^';•^■^:;.■.■;■;A^;^-.; >--' :^'^^iT-s,^ '\ % LEGEND GARDEN a FIELD CROPS I -J CITRUS ^^^^H DECIDUOUS I 1 ALFALFA HMMHI IRRIGATED GRASS ^ DOMESTIC a INDUSTRIAL ^ UNIRRIGATED VALLEY LANDS ;y HILLS AND FOOTHILLS -HABITABLE §S MOUNTAINS AND HILLS-UNINHABITABLE -'d^^ 'lUPljI^NDl "^1 J ^ iSl n ^,,j "i-^ a^=^ ' ^' j S*N OERHARDW y^oiujy GROSS IRRIGATED AREA-1032 Cn, L.l.O>-0~.. 1. »i.o«ur .„-,«. 1 »dlfl BUI TMU viln ■ui TOUI Td., ■ffl T«U t^n ■ID T«.l Wl TMl 7M00 nKM U.ZOD 14,«0 8.000 S,300 3,300 1.000 500 l.TOO 81J00 64,100 41.200 ujoo 4r.Ma ;o,»o 7,400 s,;oo «n i*.«oo ZOO ;,600 7Z,70O 7,600 S,7X soo 9,B00 ie.7oa 7,300 4,*00 ),S00 a» 10J300 7,S0D *,soo 1500 U.MO M.;oo 4L100 J4,K0 7,»00 liOO no 500 so 14J00 i2,9CO 25 im i.uo 144.300 201,800 79,T0U ii,m M4.»0 7,400 1,700 IMJXU IJ.J0O 116,«0 J0.B0O U6JO0 'Z Z.TOO 1WJ0O 7*,«00 S7,W0 87,400 1.900 S9.M0 117,900 lid !!':» 7JIJ00 ^ 8^ 22 23 CITRUS 8. AVOCADOS APRICOTS. MISC. TREES & GRAPES BEANS. BEETS & HAY WALNUTS ALFALrA TRUCK t. MISC. GARDEN SUBDIVISION UNIRRIGATED VALLEY LANDS BASE OF FOOTHILLS HABITABLE FOOTHILL AREA TOE OF MOUNTAINS MOUNTAIN AREA / '■> / IS / 'e r I la I 'B I So I Si iiuiuavivisii— r Pliirth*tiiBUCnri» nuunlViMi... .-..«.'ir ,H. ~~ -«..- •^ ^^. 3r £SS1L b^ ss:^ 5» i.m 1« «« a z» ST TM MS un 14S tin I,MI I.IN 1S2 im rn IMZ ■ifi I.1C0 ■i» H U MM IJOO M.tM 11il4 J.Ut itj«i ijti i?oti llJIt I.m lit in xm II lot 110 III %HI «ii ».»! 1.M3 ajM ujat Mil 7.in .,m II4,»1 WAO '"^^"-^ STATE OF CALIFOnNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES VENTURA COUNTY INVESTIGATION IRRIGATED CROPS 1932 '/ ^< / 55 / ^« /' ^ ^e ■ / SB 3S I ^ I ^ 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. 111606 Calif. Division. oil watftr rpSQurces. PHYSICAL SCIENCES LIBRARY TC82I4 jC2 JiZ Tca^4^ C2. A2. ■5pocHet5 LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS 111606 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS 3 il75 02037 6524