LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS mi% J MAP C SIGNIFICANT MINERAL DEPOSITS IN ANTELOPE-MOJAVL BASIN borate., tungsten, salt, gold, silver, pumice, roofing granules,, and gypsum. The Los Angeles County portion of Antelope Valley contains deposits of gold, gypsum, limestone, sand, and graveL Only sand and gravel currently have commercial significance. Beyond the boundaries of the survey area but within the general vicinity are other noteworthy deposits. Located to the north is Searles Lake, the site of a chemical industry based on the pumping and proces- sing of lake brines. Reference has already been made to the production of borax in this area. Other chemicals produced include sodium sulfate, soda ash, potassium chloride, potassium sulfate, lithium salts, bromine, and salt cake. Much of the common salt consumed in Southern California comes from Searles Lake, adjacent to the investigational area, and some from Koehn Lake, Kern County, which is within the area. The current value of mineral production within the subject area is not available. An indication of the magnitude is provided by the estimate that limestone production throughout San Bernardino County amounts to about $35 million annually. Most of this production comes from the Mojave River district. The value of borate production is also estimated to be substantial. Tungsten production was valued at about $1 million in 1955, but declined in 1956 because of the initiation of a new govern- ment purchase program at a lower unit price. This metal is mined in the Atolia district, four miles south of Johannesburg. Local producers -121- borate, tungsten, salt, gold, silver, pumice, roofing granules, and gypsum. The Los Angeles County portion of Antelope Valley contains deposits of gold, gypsum, limestone, sand, and gravel. Only sand and gravel currently have commercial significance. Beyond the boundaries of the survey area but within the general vicinity are other noteworthy deposits. Located to the north is Searles Lake, the site of a chemical industry based on the pumping and proces- sing of lake brines. Reference has already been made to the production of borax in this area. Other chemicals produced include sodium sulfate, soda ash, potassium chloride, potassium sulfate, lithium salts, bromine, and salt cake. Much of the common salt consumed in Southern California comes from Searles Lake, adjacent to the investigational area, and some from Koehn Lake, Kern County, which is within the area. The current value of mineral production within the subject area is not available. An indication of the magnitude is provided by the estimate that limestone production throughout San Bernardino County amounts to about $35 million annually. Most of this production comes from the Mojave River district. The value of borate production is also estimated to be substantial. Tungsten production was valued at about $1 million in 1955, but declined in 1956 because of the initiation of a new govern- ment purchase program at a lower unit price. This metal is mined in the Atolia district, four miles south of Johannesburg. Local producers -121- are reported to have had a difficult time competing with imported tungsten, and have been dependent upon government purchase programs. Principally of historical interest now are the area's gold and silver niining districts. The silver mines in the Calico district, about 10 miles northeast of Barstow, and at Randsburg have been the outstanding sources of silver in California, During the period 1882 to 1896, the mines at Calico yielded silver ore with a total value estimated between $13 and $20 million. The Randsburg area was most active in the period 1920 to 1925. The de- cline in silver prices and exhaustion of known high-grade bodies have led to a virtual cessation of mining, San Bernardino County's total production in 1955 was valued at $2,, 397. One of the most notable gold-producing areas is the Rand district, which includes several mines in San Bernardino County, but is located principally m Kern County. Mines in this area were particularly active at the turn of the century. Operations have been on a highly selective basis over the recent past because of the fixed price of gold. The out- look for these producers depends, in part, upon international monetary developments. The value of the current production of such metals as copper, lead, manganese, and zinc is of modest size. Generally, these are available in world markets at prices which cannot be met by area producers. f -122- In summary, over the near-term future mineral deposits in the area other than limestone and borate are not likely to support a substan- tially increased level of mining activity nor are they likely to exercise a strong attraction to new industries. The long-term prospects are brighter, however, in light of the fact that mineral deposits of less than highest grade and of limited extensiveness will probably receive increased atten- tion in the future as we continue to deplete our best deposits and as ad- vancements in mining technology increase the economic feasibility of their use. This trend has significance to the future development of the area's metallic deposits. The primary metal industries are identified as those which might be attracted to the area's resources, particularly its iron ore deposits. 8. MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY CATEGORIES GENERALLY SUITABLE FOR THE AREA Through analysis of the area's basic locational factors, national and regional industrial trends, and current industrial development in the Antelope- Mo jave area, it is possible to identify, by broad categories, the types of manufacturing activities which might be expected to locate there over the long-term future. Specific factors governing the suitabil- ity of the area for particular manufacturing industry categories and which have been assessed in this study are: markets, sites, location of produc- tion materials, labor supply, industrial fuel, water, power, transportation. 123- distribution facilities, and climate. Based on these considerations and factors affecting the selection of plant locations, the following industry categories are identified as being among those suitable for establishment in the Antelope-Mojave area:* Food and kindred products, particularly poultry and dairy products. Apparel , particularly outerwear. Furniture and fixtures , including household furniture, store fixtures, doors, and screens. Chemical and allied products , principally industrial chemicals using the mineral resources of the area. Stone, clay, and glass products such as concrete, gypsum, and plaster products. Primary metal industries , particularly die castings of nonferrous metals and alloys. Fabricated metal products, particularly metal stampings and sheet metal work. Electrical equipment and supplies such as components and light assemblies. Transportation equipment , specifically aircraft and parts. Electronics which include portions of the aircraft and parts indus- try, electrical machinery and equipment industries, the instruments industry, and ordnance industry. (Not an official industrial classifi- cation. ) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive or definitive, but rather to illustrate the number and variety of industrial categories which might *Using U. S. Government standard industrial classifications. 124- find the area attractive over the long-term period ahead. The suitability of the area will naturally vary as between the individual communities within the basin. It is perhaps unnecessary to point out again the diffi- culties involved in forecasting with preciseness the extent to which each of these industry categories may contribute to the area's growth and the timing of their development. Nevertheless, it appears from the above that the area offers a favorable environment for the attraction and recep- tion of a diversified industrial base. Concrete evidence of the suitability and attraction of the area for new industry is manifested by the prospective addition to the industrial scene of two companies in an industry new to the area, which are slated to begin construction of plants in the Mojave district within the near future. These companies now have manufacturing facilities in the Los Angeles area and are engaged in the production of precision cast aluminum and magnesium parts for the aircraft and missile industries. Among the reasons given for the prospective move are: the limited room for es^an- sion in present location; availability of large industrial sites at a low price; basic appeal of desert living; and a desire to leave the crowded conditions of the metropolitan center. The exact number of persons to be employed in these plants is not known. However, neither company anti- cipates any difficulty in attracting either skilled or unskilled labor. -125- 9. WATER SUPPLY AND COST FACTORS Uncertainties concerning the long-term supply of ground water and the requirement in some areas that industry develop its own resources has had a limiting effect upon the industrial development of the area. With the assumption that an affirmative decision regarding the availability of supplemental water will be announced by 1960 and that such water will be delivered by 1970, this picture changes fundamentally. These events may be expected to have a profoundly stimulating effect upon the area's industrial development. Even during the interim period between 1960 and 1970, a stepped-up level of industrialization might be anticipated. Despite assurances of a supply of supplemental water, it is unlikely that the Antelope- Mo jave basin will be attractive to the large v/ater -using industries. Companies whose manufacturing processes entail the use of water as a part of the product have shown a preference for areas which can rely entirely upon their local ground and surface resources. Paper mills and textile manufacturers may be cited as illustrations of these. For all manufacturing industries other than the large water users, the cost of water represents a minor component of total production costs; factors other than this price are controlling in their plant location deci- sions. Principally for this reason, it is our finding that whether supple- mental water is made available to municipal systems at $50 or up to $100 126- per acre-foot will make slight difference to the over-all industrial devel- opment of the area. Even after adding an increment to cover costs of building distribution systems from the city mains to individual companies, these prices will be competitive with those which are likely to be charged by other south coastal areas seeking comparable industries. 10. RELATED INCREASES IN TRADE, SERVICE, AND OTHER NON - MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES The economic development in Antelope Valley since 1950 has pro- vided a good, close-at -hand illustration of the effect of an expansion of manufacturing industries upon employment in the trade, services, and other nonmanufacturing industries. Available statistics suggest that for every employee added by manufacturing industries another is added by the nonmanufacturing industries, including contract construction^ trade, trans- portation, personal, and financial services. The extent to which an increase in manufacturing employment pro- vides jobs in the other industries is likely to vary widely. Factors which determine its effect include the types of manufacturing industry which move in and the stage of the area's economic development. It is fairly obvious, however, that although it is not possible to quantify precisely the multi- plying effect which industrial growth in the Antelope- Mo jave area will have upon total employment, it will be of major proportions and an important source of jobs to the vastly increased population. 127- 11. SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL POTENTIAL It is our conclusion that the Antelope- Mo jave basin has a consider- able industrial potential and will experience a significant development over the next 60 -some years, assuming an adequate supply of water is assured. This growth will involve both the expansion of present resource-based in- dustries and the establishment of industries new to the area. The military aircraft industry, while not likely to experience further major expansions, will provide a measure of stability over the next 10 to 15 years and may serve to attract commercial aircraft, missile, and electronics activities. In addition, an extensive and varied group of potential new industries are suitable to the peculiar features and characteristics found in the basin area. Over the next decade or so industrial development in the Antelope- Mojave basin should reflect a slow but momentum -gathering rate, achieving a greater degree of diversity and strength as the stimulating effects of the expected arrival of supplemental water are felt. A quickening of the tempo of industrial development should follow the actual availability of such water in 1970. In the decades that follow, the population pressures of the growing metropolitan center should provide an increasingly insistent stimulus to the achievement of the area's industrial economic potentialities, as people and industry seek adjacent areas in which to live and work. -128- VI. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IN RELATION TO PROJECTED GROWTH VI, TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IN RELATION TO PROJECTED GROWTH Served by three major railroads, two transcontinental bus lines^, and key north-south and east-west highways, the Antelope- Mo jave basin is generally well situated with respect to transportation. The area occu- pies a strategic position with regard to passenger and freight movement into California via southern transcontinental routes in respect to traffic destined for the south coastal cities and for the San Joaquin Valley and points north. Transportation centers like Barstow and Mojave, in particular, feel the impact of the transportation industry. In the former community, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway is the largest civilian employer. In Mojave, some 7% of the town's labor force is employed by Southern Pacific Railroad and over 10% is employed in providing services and facil- ities to tourists driving through the area. County and state highway main- tenance stations and highway contractors also contribute to the importance of transportation industry employment in the valley. 1. RAILROADS The south-east line of the Santa Fe passing through Barstow is the main line from the West Coast to the east. Rail traffic to Bakersfield and •129- northern California moves westward from Barstow to Mojave on Santa Fe's tracks. From here, Santa Fe uses Southern Pacific lines over the Tehachapi Pass to Bakersfield. The line south from Barstow goes to San Bernardino and to Los Angeles. The plans for constructing a freight car classification yard at Barstow by the Santa Fe have been temporarily suspended. Although the exact timing of the construction of this yard is indefinite, it probably will be completed within the next few years to handle anticipated increases in traffic. Be- cause this classification yard will utilize the latest in electronic equipment, the increase in number of personnel will be negligible. The Union Pacific line northeast of Barstow is the main line of the system to Salt Lake City and points east. The Union Pacific uses Santa Fe's tracks from the vicinity of Daggett to San Bernardino. The main line of the Southern Pacific's inland (San Joaquin Valley) route serves the principal communities of Antelope Valley and proceeds into Los Angeles via San Fernando Valley. Traffic destined for the east- ern and southern United States then moves on through Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Southern Pacific has surveyed a right of way from Palmdale to Summit for the construction of a branch line. Arrangements are being made by Southern Pacific with Santa Fe to use the latter's lines from -130- Summit through El Cajon Pass in order to connect with the Southern Pacific line near Colton. This route would enable shipments between the east and northern and central California to by-pass the Los Angeles railway yards. Such would not only expedite eastern shipments, but would also relieve traffic congestion in the Los Angeles area. Southern Pacific is purchasing land near Palmdale at the present time for the above-mentioned branch line between Palmdale and Summit. The completion date has not been set, but it appears likely that the by-pass will be constructed within the next five years. The latest central traffic control equipment will be installed on this line. The use of this type of equipment enables railroads to achieve double track flexibility with single track line. All railroad representatives consulted have emphasized that spur tracks or branch lines would be constructed as required to meet the de- mands of industry in the Antelope -Mo jave area. Santa Fe, for example, recently constructed a branch line to Cushenbury Springs to service the Permanente Cement plant. Present facilities plus planned improvements shoiild provide this desert area with adequate rail transportation for the foreseeable future. 2. HIGHWAYS State highways and county roads will be of primary importance to the development of the Antelope -Mojave basin because they will be the -131- principal means of access to and egress from this region. Freeway-type construction of main traffic arteries will be essential to move the traffic expected to be generated by the predicted influx of people and the antici- pated increase in volume of transcontinental traffic across the region. Traversing the Mojave Desert, U. S. Highway 66 is now a major transcontinental route to the east. From San Bernardino to Victorville it is a four-lane divided highway. The last contract has just been awarded for constructing a new four-lane, 30-mile expressway between Victorville and Barstow, This $6, 000, 000 project will be completed in about two years. The stretch between Barstow and the California border is now a two -lane road which is adequate to handle present traffic beyond Daggett. As part of the interstate system it will undoubtedly be widened by 1970, Joint Highway 91 and 466, connecting Barstow and Las Vegas, is inadequate to handle current traffic safely. This stretch of highway will become an expressway in the near future as it is a part of the current federal interstate highway construction program. At Barstow, Route 91 separates from Route 466 and joins Route 66. Highway 466 west to Mojave and over the Tehachapi Mountains to Bakersfield is now the major access road from the Mojave Desert to the Central Valley of California and the Pacific Northwest. A large portion of it is obsolete in terms of current construction standards. The portion of Route 466 from Boron to Bakersfield in Kern County has been surveyed -132- for widening to a four-lane divided highway. In fact, that portion of the road from Bakersfield to the vicinity of Bear Mountain will be expressway in the next few years. Following this, the road between Bear Mountain and Tehachapi will be improved. Timing of the construction of the express- way on to Mojave, Boron, and Barstow will be dependent upon traffic vol- ume. As a mam traffic artery from Las Vegas and points east to the Central Valley, it appears that this should be accomplished about 1970. Principal north and south routes are Highways 6 and 395. A joint road from Bishop to the Tulare-Kern County line, the two highways sep- arate at this point and serve both sides of the Antelope -Mojave basin. In this area both highways are only two lanes. However, heavily traveled Route 6 should become a freeway from Mojave to a point south of Palm- dale within 5 or 6 years according to current plans. The entire route from Palmdale to Los Angeles should become a freeway within 10 years. (Frequently referred to as the Mint Canyon Freeway.) Travel on Route 395 is light and there are no plans for improving the road in the immediate future. This route joins Highway 66 south of Victorville. Of major importance to the development and growth of this region is the plan to construct a freeway from Ventura to the vicinity of Palm- dale and on east to Highway 66. This route would join Highway 6 for part 133- of the distance to Palmdale. It is visualized that this project shoiild be completed about 1970. This contemplated building program by the Division of Highways utilizes all funds estimated to be apportioned frona federal and state sources during the next 10 to 12 years. It should meet the basic needs of the area for interregional and intraregional travel until aboiit 1970. To meet longer range requirements sufficient right of way has been purchased to provide for additional highway lanes and the construction of interchanges, In addition, regional planning commissions and the Division of Highways coordinate long-range planning to eliminate problems encountered in pre- vious years. County roads are adequate at present, and master plans for addi- tional and improved county roads have been prepared through 1970. How- ever, accomplishment of these master plans is problematical in view of the fact that counties have insufficient funds to keep up with the total cur- rent needs. The inadequacy of county road funds is further emphasized because all plans do not anticipate the large increases in population that are forecast for this area. County agencies are doing what they can to alleviate the road problem by planning for maximum utilization of limited funds . In summary, it appears that state highway programs for the next decade will meet the progressive requirements of the Antelope -Mo jave 134- area. Highway needs will not be a deterrent to development. On the con- trary, they should facilitate the entry of people and industry to this region. However, under existing conditions, with current resources, it appears that county governments will lack the capacity to meet the expanding need for additional and improved county roads. A more adequate source of funds will have to be found to develop an adequate county road system for the future. 3. TRUCK AND BUS LINES Victorville and Barstow are on a transcontinental route of Continental Trailways and Greyhound Bus Lines. The latter company also provides north and south services to Antelope Valley communities. Also using the principal highways of the area are a number of trucking companies. Ser- eral local trucking firms provide freight service to Lancaster. At least four lines provide service from Barstow to Los Angeles, with others pro- viding direct service to San Francisco and major southwest, midwest, and eastern cities. Present bus and truck lines will expand, and new carriers may be expected to enter this region as soon as the demand for additional service is evident. 4. AIRPORT FACILITIES Airport facilities in this region are almost wholly confined to gov- ernment installations and small private airports. The only commercial -135- airline serving the survey area is Bonanza Air Lines which recently in- augurated service from Los Angeles to Apple Valley. Southwest Airways has been granted permission to land at the U.S. Air Force Plant No„ 42 at Palmdale until the new Los Angeles County Airport, to be located north and west of Lancaster, is completed. The site for the General William A. Fox Airfield near Lancaster has been purchased by the county, and construction should be completed late in 1958. The runway will be 6, 000 feet long with additional land avail- able to extend it to 8, 000 feet. The airport is being built primarily to handle small commercial airplanes and to meet the requirements of pri- vate individuals and industrial aviation. Construction specifications do not provide for the larger commercial airplanes to land on a regular basis. Rather, General Fox Airport would be used by large planes only when other airports are fogged in. Plans for other airports are indefinite. Both Barstow and Hesperia want to build airports for private airplanes and industrial aviation, but no positive action has been taken toward acquiring sites. Within the next few decades the need for commercial facilities should increase. Population growth should be able to support a sizable public airport in the Palmdale-Lancaster area and another one between Victor- ville and Barstow. This will require planning by county agencies and zon- ing to provide for adequate airport space. -136- 5. GENERAL TRANSPORTATION OUTLOOK Over all, it appears that the system of major highways and other transportation facilities should keep pace with the transportation require- ments of the Antelope -Mo jave basin for the immediate future. State high- way construction is probably ahead of actual requirements for the next decade and will tend to stimulate the growth and economic development of the area. On the other hand, shovild Feather River water be made available to the Antelope -Mo jave basin, both state and county agencies will find it necessary to reappraise their highway and road programs in the light of greater prospective population increases over the next several decades. Advance planning, including necessary financing, should prevent major problems from arising in the future and should result in the development of a sound basic highway system which can be easily expanded as a firm foundation for the network of roads and streets needed long range by poten- tial population growth. In summary, therefore, there is every reason to believe that trans- portation facilities for the subject area will at all times be fully adequate to serve the projected population growth and will m no wise operate as an impediment to such growth. They should in fact, serve as a stimulant to economic development. -137- VII. NATIONAL AND STATE GROWTH TRENDS AFFECTING ANTELOPE -MO JAVE DEVELOPMENT VII. NATIONAL AND STATE GROWTH TRENDS AFFECTING ANTELOPE -MO JAVE DEVELOPMENT The population and economic growth of the Antelope- Mo jave basin for the period 1960 to 2020 will, to a large extent, be conditioned by the growth pattern that will occur in the rest of the state and the nation. The most significant immediate factor that will influence the rate and magnitude of expansion for this underdeveloped region is its geographic proximity to the rapidly growing Los Angeles metropolis. 1. THE GROWTH OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND POPULATION Although the Antelope -Mo jave basin possesses many valuable re- sources to foster an expanding economy, external forces, primarily economic and urban, will be the major determinants of its future devel- opment. Of paramount importance is the context of national and state growth in which its future will unfold. (1) National Economic Growth Almost universally, recent governmental and semiofficial studies forecast the greatest economic expansion over the next 60 years that this nation has yet witnessed. Barring a major war or some unforeseen natural catastrophe, it is generally estimated that 138- the gross national product will continue indefinitely to grow at a rate ■ equivalent to that which has been achieved over the past 50 years. Over the long term this has averaged out to a 3% annual growth rate. With this as a base and utilizing unofficial long-range data of authoritative federal agencies, a potential gross national product by the year 2020, in the neighborhood of $2,800 billion, is projected at 1956 prices. This represents better than a sixfold increase over present levels of about $434 billion annually. There are numerous factors contributing to a spiraling econ- omy which can operate to bring about a national productivity of these prodigious magnitudes over the next 60 or more years. Changes in technology growing out of electronics and automation appear to be ushering in new methods of production and distribution that will be as far-reaching as the introduction of machinery with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. New and cheaper sources of energy, atomic and solar, will provide new locational opportunities for in- dustry and quicken the pace of growth. Major developments are anticipated in chemistry, metallurgy, and agriculture which will give a whole new range of products as significant as plastics, heat- resistant allojs, soil conditioners, and other materials which are now transforming the economic scene. Increasing emphasis upon research and the systematization of invention are also accelerating production trends. -139- Technological developments will be paralleled by social ad- vancements. Scientific knowledge and labor skills are being en- hanced by the broadening and extension of education. Improved worker productivity will result in higher incomes which in turn should give rise to significant progress in the standards of living for everyone. More efficient productivity will raise the quality of transportation, distribution, and consumer services. Furthermore, on the basis of present trends, government may be expected to con- tinue its support of programs designed to increase individual secur- ity and to provide an environment favorable for national economic growth. Thus, the national climate for expansion over the next several decades is, we believe, highly favorable as a base for towering growth in the economy of Southern California. (2) National Population Growth Over the next 60 years the unprecedented expansion of the na- tional economy will be reflected in (and will equally be an outgrowth of) dramatic population increases. In estimating national popula- tion growth to the year 2020 we have relied basically upon official data and projections of population trends prepared by the United States Bureau of the Census for the period up to 1975. Thereafter we have employed unofficial population data adjusted for economic -140- factors as derived and used by authoritative federal agencies. Even assuming a somewhat moderated birth rate after 1980, these projec- tions show a national population of between 400 and 430 million by 2020 A. D. In other words, the population of the United States may be expected to increase more than twice as much in the next 60 years as it did in the preceding 168 years since the Republic was founded. A number of factors are contributing to this prospective tre- mendous upswing in national population. An extended period of prosperity with high personal in- _ comes will, if past experience holds true, result in a | continuation of high marriage and birth rates. The trend toward larger families in evidence since World War II should continue as home modernization and house- hold conveniences make the tasks of child-rearing less burdensome. Progress in medical science will be reflected in lower mortality rates and in a significant extension of the life span. The total living and social environment can be expected to be conducive to population growth. Estimated national population growth through the survey period is reflected in Table 23, following this page. This projects the pres- ent average growth rate of about 1. 6% annually with some fall-off forecast after 1980 largely on the grounds that there may be some decline in the birth rate from present high levels. Nevertheless, 141- TABLE 23 UNITED STATES POPULATION 1940-1950 with Projections to 2020* August 1957 Population Year (in thousands) 1940 131, 954 1950 151,234 1960 180,000 1970 211,000 1980 249,000 1990 291,000 2000 334,000 2010 377,000 2020 415,000 Rate of Growth 14.6% 19,3% 17. 1% 18,0% 16,8% 14.9% 12,8% 10.0% ♦Figures derived from Current Population Reports, United States Bureau of the Census, and from data furnished by other agencies of the federal government. These projec- tions are essentially an extrapolation of present population growth rates with a reduction in birth rate forecast after 1980. numerically the nation's population may be anticipated as increasing from thirty to forty million for each decade after 1960. It should be borne m mind that these figures are based upon a contmuation of prosperous conditions. Should the national produc- tivity increase less than expected, the corresponding impact upon population growth might reduce population size by as much as 10%, resulting in a population of about 380 million bythe year 2020. On the other hand, if the present fertility rate continues with high pros- perity, then a population of better than 440 million might be antici- pated. It should be emphasized that a figure somewhere between 400 and 430 million appears to be the best for purposes of national planning on the basis of all the evidence now available. (3) Future National Population Distribution There are a number of factors and trends with respect to the probable regional and state distribution of the nation's future pop- ulation which are significant for the Antelope- Mo jave basin. First, it IS clear that a progressively larger proportion of the nation's future population will be urban. Although greater dis- persal of population throughout the country may be expected, the vast majority of people will settle within the perimeters of well- established urban centers. Existing metropolitan communities will •142- continue to grow, causing land suitable for urban activities on the outskirts of large cities to be at a premium. Likewise the trend toward westward migration should continue for the decades ahead, at least until such time as there is a greater balance of populations between the eastern and western seaboards. Among western states, all signs indicate that California can continue to anticipate the greatest growth from regional migration, 2. THE ECONOMIC AND POPULATION GROWTH OF CALIFORNIA The rate of population growth in California will be determined by the extent to which the state maintains an environment favorable to economic expansion. Conditions of prosperity are particularly significant for pop- ulation migration into the state. (1) Factors Favorable to the Growth of the California Economy Forces which appear favorable to the sustained growth of the California economy are the following: California's climate and living advantages should con- tinue to be major attractions to the nation's population provided the state can adequately meet the problems growing out of urban congestion. The rate of expansion of the national economy should produce a higher rate of growth in California than the national average since the rate of westward migration will be stimulated and factors of distance will become less important as communications and technology advance. 143- 3. California's economy is diversifying and its rate of growth in the fields of basic manufacturing and durable goods should continue to be higher than for many other regions for the next few decades. The state is in a strategic position, as a result of past expansion in air- craft and related activities, to be in the forefront of new industrial developments associated with electronics and automation. 4. Although a sudden and sharp decline in certain categories of defense expenditures would have some dislocating ef- fects, particularly for Southern California, reductions of the likely magnitude will have only a temporary impact and will not affect long-time basic growth. Furthermore, these reductions would likely be offset by increases for rocket and missile development. 5. The state's recreational and tourist attractions should contribute materially to the well-being of the state's economy as the standard of living rises and more leisure time becomes available. 6. The business and governmental climate of California should continue to be favorable to state growth. Youth- ful and venturesome industries and popular acceptance of advance practices of public administration should keep stagnation to a minimum. In short, conditions similar to those which have favored the growth of California in preceding decades should prevail for the in- definite future. Over the next half century it is not unreasonable to anticipate that California will continue to enjoy a rate of growth greater than the national average. To state it statistically, if national productivity rises at the rate of 3% annually for the next half century, a condition now foreseen by most economic experts, then it is fair to predict that the rate of California's economic growth should be from 1/2% to 1% higher per year for the same period, -144- I (2) Population Projections for California California's prospective rate of population growth may be pro- jected in different ways. One method, illustrated in Table 24, fol- lowing this page, projects the state's population as a percentage of the national total. A second method estimates population on the basis of factors of natural increase and migration as illustrated in Table Z5, following page 146. These are discussed in the following sections. (3) Proportion of National Total Ever since the turn of the century, California's rate of growth has been greater than that for the nation at large. The state's pro- portion of the total population has accordingly been steadily increas- ing. Thus, between 1900 and 1950 California's percentage of the na- tional population grew from 1.95% to 7. 00%, or nearly a 1.0% increase per decade. It should be noted that the rate of growth has been greatest since 1940. Using the national population growth projections presented ear- lier in Table 2 3, the future population of California as a percentage of the national total is estimated in Table 24. On the basis of this projection, California may be expected to reach a population level of more than 50 million by the year 2020 based upon an estimated 415 million national total. This estimate -145- TABLE 24 PAST AND PROJECTED POPULATION OF CALIFORNIA AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL NATIONAL POPULATION* 1900-2020 August 1957 Past and Projected California as a Past and Projected National Population Percent of California Population Year (in thousands) National Total L96 (in thousands) 1900 76,094 1,490 1910 92,407 2,60 2,406 1920 106,466 3.34 3,554 1930 123,077 4,64 5,711 1940 131, 954 5.27 6,950 1950 151, 234 7.02 10,609 1960 180,000 8,75 16,000 1970 211,000 10. 25 21,600 1980 249,000 11.25 28,000 1990 291,000 11.75 34,200 2000 334,000 12.00 40,100 2010 377,000 12. 13 45,800 2020 415,000 12.20 50,600 ^Figures for 1900-1950 are drawn from California's Population in 1957, California State Department of Finance, p. 9. United States Projec- tions for 1960-2020 are based upon Table 23. assumes that the state's population as a percentage of the national total will grow until 1970 at only a slightly reduced rate from the high levels of 1940 to 1957. After 1970 the rate of growth will grad- ually experience a further decline, under our forecast, predicated upon a marked fall-off for in-state migration and an increasing de- cline in the birth rate. However, this will still produce unprec- edented aggregate growth building up to the 50 million figure by 2020. (4) Projection Based on National Increase and Migration Another method of projection involves estimating population growth on the basis of the factors of natural increase and migration. Past statistics are, in this connection, particularly revealing for California. From Table 25, following this page, it can be seen that better that 70% of the state's population growth during the period 1900 to 1950 was due to migration. Though the ratio of migration relative to natural increase has been declining since 1940, never- theless the fact that well over 250, 000 people annually are still com- ing to California from other states reflects how important migration is for maintaining a high rate of state population growth. Recent growth rates of migration and natural increase can be projected to give a fairly sound estimate of probable state population size in the years immediately ahead. However, projections beyond two decades involve some major assumptions concerning future levels -146- TABLE 25 COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE IN CALIFORNIA 1900-1955* August 1957 Components of Change Total C hange Natural Increase Number Percent Net Migration Years Number Percent 1900-1910 890,300 115,000 12.9 775,300 87.1 1910-1920 1,050,700 170, 200 16.2 880, 500 83.8 1920-1930 2,252,400 370,500 16.4 1,882,000 83.6 1930-1940 1,227,900 177,900 14.5 1,050,000 85.5 1940-1950 3,679,000 1,021,000 27.8 2,658,000 72,2 1950-1955 2, 368,000 881,000 33,4 1,487,000 66.6 I ♦ Prepared by the Financial Research Section, State Department of Finance. Figures for 1900-1940 from Commonwealth Club of California Research Service, The Population of California, by Davis McEntire, Table 10, p. 21, using data prepared by Charles N. Reynolds and Sara Miles for the Central Valley Project Studies, 1940-1950 from Bureau of the Census, Current M Population Reports, Population Estimates , Series P-25, No, 72, Table 3, p. 5, 1950-1955 figures were furnished by the Financial Research Section of the California Department of Finance. I of fertility and the status of the California economy relative to other states and regions. Table 26, following this page, presents the re- sults of our projection of the state's population growth to the year 2020 based upon probable rates of net migration and natural increase. In formulating the estimates in Table 26 it has been assumed that beginning about 1980 there will be a gradual decline in the rate of natural increase due to a reduction m the birth rate from present high levels as the state begins to approach more closely the nation in its population characteristics. It has also been assumed that after 1970 a fairly sharp decline in migration will occur as California achieves a more nature economy approximating the national average and as some of the by- products of urbanization make living advantages of California com- paratively less attractive than is the present case. Sometime be- tween 1970 and 1980 it is expected that births will provide a greater proportional addition to the state's population than migration. On the basis of the projections calculated by these methods and assumptions, a population of over 52 million could be expected for California by the year 2020. This would involve an increase of from 5 to 6 million each decade after 1960. (5) Comparative Results Comparison will show that the projections derived in Table 2 6 are slightly higher than those derived in Table 24, particularly for -147- TABLE 26 PAST AND PROJECTED POPULATION OF CALIFORNIA ON THE BASIS OF RATE OF CHANGE IN NEW MIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE* August 1957 Decade Natural Increase Nurpber Percent Net Migration Total Ending Number Percent Population 1940 177,000 3,1 1,050,000 18,6 6,950,000 1950 1,021,000 14.8 2, 658,000 38.5 10,609,000 1960 2,006,000 18.6 3,019,000 28,8 15, 600,000 1970 2, 881,000 18.4 3, 230,000 20.7 21,700,000 1980 3,468,000 16.4 3, 002,000 13.8 28, 300,000 1990 4,076,000 14.4 2,606,000 9,2 35, 900,000 2000 4, 340,000 12.4 2, 999,000 6.0 41,400,000 2010 4,308,000 10,4 1, 659,000 4.0 47,400,000 2020 3, 983,000 8.4 1, 279, 000 2.7 52,600,000 *The percentages for the decades 1950-1960 and 1960-1970 are based upon figures furnished by the Financial Research Section, California State Department of Finance. the decades 2000-2020. However, the difference between 50, 600, 000 and 52, 600, 000 is not too significant for our purposes. It should be recognized that if the rate of national and state economic expansion turns out to be somewhat less than predicted, California's population by the end of the survey period might be as much as 10% lower, or approximately 46 million. Contrariwise, if birth rates are maintained at the present rates for several more decades, and if the rate of in-state migration does not decline as rapidly as has been estimated, the population of California could be several millions larger than the above estimates. In the light of all factors and considerations, however, it ap- pears that a figure of approximately 50 million by the year 2020 is reasonable and feasible as a basis for state planning. Admittedly, these estimates for California population growth are higher than other recent projections prepared by local and state authorities. This may be ascribed largely to the fact that factors of national pop- ulation and economic trends, as forecast by authoritative national agencies, have been given greater weight in our estimates. 3. THE GROWTH PICTURE FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA The forces which are influencing the rapid growth statewise in California are operating strongest in Southern California, particularly 148- with respect to those counties which are in the coastal plain of metropolitan Los Angeles. In 1950, for example, the population of the four counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino constituted 45.4% of the state's total, a figure that is projected to rise to 47.7% by 1960, based upon the growth that has already taken place in the last seven years. (1) Economic and Population Growth of the Los Angeles Metro - politan Area There is a sound basis for expecting sustained growth in the greater Los Angeles metropolitan region. The area has a rapidly expanding industrial base. It now ranks third in the nation in value of manufactured products and has become a most important center for the electronics industries. At the present rate of expenditures, it will soon be the second largest retail trading area in the nation. Personal income is rising at a higher rate than for most other re- gions. Much open land is available for urban expansion. That the climate and economic opportunities are still continuing to offer strong attraction to people elsewhere is reflected in the statistics which show that over 200, 000 people per year have migrated into this four-county region since 1950, accounting for over two-thirds of the population growth during this period. Projections of population growth for the four counties com- prising the greater Los Angeles metropolitan community are 149- presented in Table Z7, following this page. These estimates are based upon the assumptions that (1) the present trends toward indus- trialization and suburbanization will continue, and (2) the region will be able to solve adequately the problems of smog, traffic, and other vicissitudes of urban congestion. Under our estimate the population of the four designated counties may be expected to increase from approximately 7-1/2 million in 1960 to over 23 million by 2 020. A numerical growth of from 2 to 3 mil- lion is predicted for each decade during the survey period. We antici- pate that this area will continue to be the residence of nearly one- half of the state's total population in 2020. Estimates for the total population of the four counties were based upon the relationships of growth to the entire state. It is ex- pected that this area will expand at a slightly greater rate than the state average until 1980. After 1980 there will be a gradual decline in the growth rate as higher densities prevail and as population flows toward less densely settled areas elsewhere in the state. (2) Growth Factors in Specific Counties In projecting the population growth for each of the four counties, account has been taken of the fact that each will probably grow at different rates at different periods based upon their relationship to -150- TABLE 27 PAST AND PROJP^CTED POPULATION OF COUNTIES IN THE LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN AREA (In Thousands) August 1957 San Bernardino State Total .1,490 Four County Total Number Percent* 236 15. 8 Los Angeles County Number Percent** 170 72. Orange Number 20 County Percent** 8.4 Riverside Number 18 County Percent** 7.6 County Year Number 28 Percent 1900 11.8 1910 2,406 630 26.2 504 80.0 34 5,4 35 5.6 57 9.0 1920 3,554 1,120 31.5 936 83.6 61 5.5 50 4.5 73 6.5 1930 5,711 2,541 44.5 2,208 87.0 118 4.6 81 3.2 134 5.3 1940 6,950 3, 182 45.8 2,786 87.5 130 4. 1 105 3.3 161 5.1 1950 10, 609 4,819 45.4 4,152 86.2 216 4.5 170 3,5 281 5.8 1960 16, 000 7,634 47.7 6,290 82.4 588 7.7 267 3.5 489 6.4 1970 21, 600 10, 764 49. 7 7,859 72.9 1,361 12.6 539 5.0 1,005 9.3 1980 28, oeo 14, 079 50.2 9.011 64.0 2,210 15.7 1. ,084 7.7 1,774 12.6 1990 34, 200 17,023 49.7 10,316 60.6 2,622 15.4 1, ,770 10.4 2,315 13.6 2000 40, IQO 19. 566 48. 7 11,427 58.4 2.935 15.0 2, 348 12. 2,856 14.6 2010 45, 800 21,767 47. 5 12,407 57.0 3,221 14.8 2. 786 12. 8 3,352 15.4 2020 50, 600 23, 363 46. 1 13, 247 56.7 3,411 14.6 3, ,084 13. 2 3,621 15.5 ♦Percentage of State Total ••Percentage of Four County Total Note: The figures used in projections for California are from Table 24. The figures used for projections for Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties for 1960 were furnished by the Financial Research Section, California State Department of Finance. the center of the metropolitan area. Thus, the older areas such as those in Los Angeles County shovild grow more slowly as the metro- politan area disperses. Furthermore, the Los Angeles area may be expected to maintain relatively lower population densities with higher rates of dispersal when connpared with metropolitan centers in the East. Table 27 indicates that the population of Los Angeles County will gradually decline as a percentage of the total metropolitan area but will still constitute 56.7% by the year 2020. Major factors in maintaining this county's high rate of numerical growth^, particularly after 1980, will be (1) an increase in densities with a greater number of multiple residential structures in areas along the coast, and (2) the increase in population predicted for the Antelope Valley section of the county. Orange County is expected to experience its greatest rate of growth between 1960 and 1970, San Bernardino County between 1970 and 1980, and Riverside County between 1980 and 1990. As esti- mated, these three counties will each have over three million pop- ulation in the year 2 020, with San Bernardino County containing the largest number and Orange County acquiring the highest density. Although a portion of Kern County is located in the Antelope- Mojave basin, it was omitted from these forecasts. It is believed -151- that the major determinants of growth for the Kern County portion of the survey area will enaanate from the Los Angeles metropolitan area. No significant urban movement into the basin area from the Bakersfield region is foreseen for the period under study. 4. THE PATTERN OF URBAN DISPERSAL IN THE LOS ANGELES COASTAL BASIN For purposes of this discussion the Los Angeles coastal basin in- cludes all of Orange County and those portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties which lie in the coastal watershed. The Antelope-Mojave basin and the desert portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties are outside of the coastal plain. The foregoing population projections portend some difficult problems of accommodation to urban growth for Southern California and particularly for the nondesert areas. Most significant to the rate of development in the Antelope-Mojave basin are: - The future pattern of urban settlement in the Los Angeles coastal basin. - The amount of land available and suitable for urban activities. - The degree of density that may be expected. (1) The Metropolitan Settlement Pattern With respect to urban settlement, the pattern which has devel- oped in the Los Angeles metropolitan area is similar to other -152- metropolitan areas with the exception that growth has been more rapid and characterized by a higher degree of dispersal. Prior to 1950 the rate of population growth was greatest in Los Angeles County^ the center of the metropolitan area. Since 1950, however, the rate of growth has been greater in adjacent counties., notably Orange and San Bernardino, as population and urban activities began to spill over from more developed areas. Every sign indicates that there will continue to be an outward push in all directions from the central metropolis until all of the relatively flat land of the entire coastal plain is covered with urban activity. A number of factors have been influential in accelerating the rate of this dispersal in recent years. The opening of the Santa Ana and San Bernardino freeways has stepped up the pace of devel- opment in Orange and San Bernardino Counties. The availability of less expensive land in outlying areas has also influenced industrial and subdivision dispersal. Planned decentralization of commercial centers, such as has taken place in the East San Gabriel Valley, is likewise fostering urban spread. In general the areas along the coast may be expected to ur- banize more rapidly than the areas farther inland since these are more favored climatically by a majority of people. Thus, for ex- ample. Orange County should move toward saturation more quickly -153- than Riverside County. On the other hand, there is a strong move- ment of industry into the East San Gabriel Valley toward San Bernardino and Riverside so that development in this region will not lag far behind. Once the entire Los Angeles coastal plain has been relatively well settled alternative urban sites will be the Ventura County coastal plain and the Antelope- Mo jave basin. Both areas at their nearest _ points are nearly the same distance from the center of Los Angeles and both are separated from the metropolitan center by mountain P ranges. Both of these areas also have some natural advantages for urban development. The Ventura plain has a more even climate and the possibilities of a good port. The Antelope -Mojave basin has sub- stantially larger quantities of land available at cheaper prices, has good and improving transportation facilities, and is located with access to both the San Bernardino and San Fernando portions of the metropolitan area- It would appear that both the Ventura plain and the Antelope - Mojave basin areas will be subject to urban pressures at the same time. Assuming that both areas receive supplemental supplies of water at approximately the same date, it may be expected that both areas will grow simultaneously at a rapid pace, particularly after 1980 as urban development pushes outward from the Los Angeles plain. •154- I (2) Amount of Land Available for Urban Development in the Los Angeles Coastal Basin The timing and rate of growth of the Antelope-Mojave basin will be largely determined by the amount of land which is available for urban settlement in the Los Angeles coastal basin and the rate at which this is used up by expanding population. Land which is suitable topographically and otherwise for urban activities on the coastal plain is considerable but nevertheless limited. There are now approximately 1, 825, 000 acres in the coastal watershed of the four counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino) which are susceptible to urban development. This total acreage includes lands currently developed as well as undeveloped in the coastal area. These statistics were derived by combining the State Water Resources Board figures of probable ultimate irrigated acreage and the acreage of probable ultimate urban and suburban areas. All of this land is deemed to be suit- able for urban use, and it is expected that it will eventually become fully urbanized with varying degrees of population density. In general, this land is composed of the relatively flat areas of the Los Angeles coastal basin. The composition by counties of this potential urban area is reflected in Table 28, following this page. -155- TABLE 28 LAND ACREAGE SUITABLE FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN PORTIONS OF COUNTIES WITHIN THE LOS ANGELES COASTAL BASIN* August 1957 Counties Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino Total Gross Area Acres Square Miles 808,700 1,264 332,600 520 426,800 667 257,000 402 1,825, 100 2, 853 ♦ Figures for this Table were derived from "Water Utilization and Requirements of California, " State Water Resources Board, Bulletin No, 2, Vol. I, 1955, Chapters 2 and 6. ( 3 ) Pop ulation Densities in the Los Angeles Coastal Basin In order to gain some measure of the population pressures which will be built up in the Los Angeles area and which will exert a direct impact on Antelope -Mo jave urban development, it is neces- sary to analyne present and future population density patterns. Thus, the rate at which the population of the Los Angeles coastal basin flows over into the outlying Antelope -Mojave basin will be largely governed by the degree of density which comes to prevail in the coastal area. More population obviously can be absorbed in the Los Angeles basin if high rather than low rates of densities prevail. The Los Angeles metropolitan area currently has the lowest rate of density of any large urban area in the county. In 1950, Los Angeles County had an over -all density of 3,206 persons per square mile of usable urban land. Some small portions of the city of Los Angeles have densities of over 13, 000 p.ersons per square mile, and a few smaller cities such as Santa Monica have over 10,000, but the majority are settled at much lower rates. As has been noted, there is a trend toward higher densities in many portions of metropolitan Los Angeles as open spaces are appropriated and more intensive use is made of land. To get some picture of the probable densities of those portions of the counties in the Los Angeles coastal basin, projections were -156- made to 2020 based upon probable ratios of population growth to land use. (See Table 29, following this page. ) The projections in this table were derived by balancing estimated population growth in the four counties (Table 27) with the total land by counties available for urban development in the coastal basin (Table 28). They indicate the probable maximum population which the coastal basin will accom- modate by the year 2020. M Pursuant to these estimates it is anticipated that by 2020 the portion of the coastal basin in Los Angeles County will have reached a population density close to saturation at a figure of 8, 850 persons per square mile for the area of 1,264 square miles given in Table 28, Although this density figure is somewhat lower than the 10, 000 persons per square mile currently being employed by the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission, it assumes a somewhat larger area as suitable for urban development. The densities for the other counties in the Los Angeles coastal basin are expected to be lower than for Los Angeles County, which will continue to be the center of the metropolitan area and more in- tensive in land use. The density for Orange County is established at 6,560 persons per square mile, San Bernardino at 5,234, and Riverside at 3, 980 by 2020. Orange County is expected to have a density considerably greater than Riverside and San Bernardino ■157- TABLE 29 POPULATION DENSITY PROJECTIONS FOR PORTIONS OF COUNTIES WITHIN THE LOS ANGELES COASTAL BASIN" August 1957 Los Angeles County Density*" Numbei Orange County"" Riverside County Density**" Number San Bernardino County Year Density*** Number Density*** Number 1950 3,206 4, 144,241 416 216,000 210 140,000 656 263, 642 1960 4,904 6, 198,000 1, 131 588,000 318 212,000 1,035 416,000 1970 6,057 7,656,000 2,617 1,461,000 658 439,000 2,134 858,000 1980 7,689 8,581,000 4.250 2,210,000 1,378 919,000 3,692 1,484,000 1990 7,470 9. 542, 000 5,042 2, 622, 000 2,090 1,394,000 4,238 1,740,000 2000 8, 110 10,251,000 5,646 2,935,000 2,825 1,884,000 4,905 1,972,000 2010 8,529 10,781,000 6, 194 3,211,000 3,561 2,375,000 5,199 2,090,000 2020 8,850 11, 188,000 6,560 3,221,000 3,980 2,655,000 5,234 2, 104, 000 *See Table 28 for amount of area susceptible to urban development. **A11 of Orange County is included within the coastal basin. ••Population density per square mile. Counties since the trend is toward more multiple residences and smaller lots near the coast. Moreover, it was assumed that both San Bernardino and Riverside Counties would be somewhat behind Orange County in the cycle of urban development. Table 29 indicates that there will be a gradual increase in densities for each county by decades to 2020. The densities for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties particularly reflect a high degree of dispersal. (4) Implications of Density Projections Densities of the magnitude indicated will create population pressures which can only be satisfied by further urban dispersal. Thus, with 2, 853 square nailes of suitable land available for total urban use in the metropolitan coastal basin, it is clear by arith- metical calculation using the projected increasing densities that a naaximum population of some 19.4 million can be accommodated within this area by the year 2020, Since our estimates indicate an ultimate population growth of about 23, 3 million in the whole four- county area it is evident that intensive movement toward more out- lying territories within the four counties is unavoidable in the decades ahead. This will be accelerated as densities move inexorably upward. It should be emphasized that the foregoing density projections and rates of dispersal apply only to Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, -158- and Riverside Counties. During the period under study additional population movement will take place out of metropolitan Los Angeles into Ventura and San Diego Counties and perhaps to some extent into other areas of Southern California. This spill-over will be above and beyond that which will occur in the outlying portions of the four counties under study and in excess of the 23. 3 million total population estimated for such counties in 2020. The magnitude of this movem.ent into Ventura and other adjacent counties has not been measured since the subject is outside the scope of the present study. However, it is safe to predict that counties such as Ventura and San Diego may also be expected to experience high rates of growth paralleling those of the area under study. In fact, were it not for the avail- ability of these areas for further urban development the expansive pressures would force an even greater population movement toward Antelope -Mo jave than is predicted. With a 50 million population estimated for the entire state in 2020 A, D. and even with 23. 3 million of this total expected to reside in the four major counties under consideration (including Antelope -Mojave), it is obvious that many other sections of the state will also witness dramatic urbaji growth over the next 60 years. Within the four-county area, however, the remaining expanse suit- able and available for accommodating the bulk of this metropolitan spill- over, once the higher densities are approached in the coastal portion, is the Antelope -Mojave basin. As greater densities emerge on the coastal -159- plain and the dispersal movement is stepped up, there is every likelihood that more urban activity and population will push into this vast and access- ible area. These density projections for the Los Angeles coastal basin are used in forecasting the growth of the Antelope-Mojave basin described in the succeeding chapter. 160- VIII. THE ANTELOPE-MOJAVE BASIN AS A SATELLITE COMMUNITY OF LOS ANGELES VIII. THE ANTELOPE-MOJAVE BASIN AS A SATELLITE COMMUNITY OF LOS ANGELES The great expansive forces operating at the national and state levels will find localized expression in the Antelope -Mojave area. There is no evidence to indicate that this outlying basin will be by-passed in the expan- sion of the economy of Southern California. On the contrary, its strategic setting and favorable conditions for development give the area a high prob- ability for extraordinary growth over the decades. Not only will the subject area be influenced by factors conditioning the growth of Southern California generally, but it will in turn by virtue of its location and available area make possible the realization of the full potential for expansion of metro- politan Los Angeles. This chapter summarizes the forces and factors which will influence the growth of this adjacent area and presents quantitative population esti- mates through the period covered by the survey. 1. FACTORS FAVORABLE TO GROWTH The Antelope-Mojave basin has many characteristics and conditions which are advantageous in terms of attracting urban activities and fostering development. 161- (1) Geogr aphy of the Basin The chief asset of the basin is its geographic location and the size of its area. It is on the perimeter of the fastest growing metro- politan region of the country. It is an area larger m size than many of the smaller east coast states, with over 65% of its acreage topo- graphically suitable for urban development. Although separated from the Los Angeles coastal basin by a mountain range, the journey from one basin into the other csm be made m less time than it takes to make many home-to-work commuting trips in the Los Angeles area. Within the Antelope-Mojave basin are a number of large areas which from the standpoint of space should be favorable to intensive urban activity. Cities can be more efficiently planned and developed than for many other locations in Southern California. Much of the land suitable for urban development is located at points such as Palm- dale and Victorville which have closest access to the Los Angeles coastal basin. The basin is also stragegically situated from the standpoint of interregional transportation and communication. On the basis of present rail connections and projected highway planning, much of the traffic between the eastern and southern parts of the United States and central California will be able to shorten distances and traveltime by -162- by-passing the more central portions of the Los Angeles metropolitan area. (2) Climate The development of Antelope-Mojave will be hastened by the comparative attractiveness of the climate for many urban pursuits. It offers a warm, dry climate, without extended periods of extremely hot or cold temperatures. With technology rapidly improving living arrangements and making facilities such as low-cost air conditioning available, the climatic attractiveness of the area will increase. The area also has some climatic advantages for particular in- dustries. The military, for example, has found that large stocks of materials can be preserved under most favorable conditions. Ware- housing, repair installations, and similar activities can be conducted under propitious circumstances. Smog represents a remote though potential menace to the basin's climate. However, it is presumed that adequate knowledge has been derived from the Los Angeles experience to enable proper safeguards to be instituted before polluted atmosphere becomes a deterrent to growth. •163- (3) The General Movement toward Dispersal A major trend of urban growth is its increasing rate of disper- sal. The Los Angeles metropolitan area, strongly influenced by the advent of the automobile, has established a pattern of urban spread which is greater than that for any city of the world of comparable population size. All available evidence indicates that the trend toward dispersal will continue and hence directly affect the future of Antelope -Mojave. Industry is increasingly using more land per square foot of building space. Commercial areas are being developed in outlying suburbs where more land is available. The lot sizes for residences are rising. Urban development is being extended more rapidly along transportation arteries. As the Los Angeles coastal basin becomes more urbanized, dispersal into the Antelope -Mojave territory will be accelerated by other factors. Growing congestion will cause more people to seek relatively less urbanized areas. The open spaces of the subject area will become more inviting to persons seeking relief from air pollu- tion, noise, transportation inconveniences, and similar unfavorable conditions. -164- (4) I ndugtrial Attra ct: veness of the Antelope -Mojav e Basin The Antelope Mojave basin has some distinct advantages for new mdustries as already described in Chapter V. Most notable is the availability of large parcels of land at relatively low prices. With the trend toward more ground- consuming structures and larger park- ing lots and buffer zones, new aad expajiduig industry is finding it in- creas.ingly difficult to acquire fairly sizable tracts of land at suitable prices in the more urbanized portions of the Los Angeles basin. While it is true that as time passes land sites in the Antelope -Mojave area will tend to become more competitive with those in metropolitan Los Angeies, this factor will not become significant for some time to come. Moreover, industries moving into the Antelope-Mojave basin will be able to plan the:r industrial operations relative to site more effectively. Greater discrimination can be used m the location of buildings and parking lots, and more protection can be provided against adjacent urban activities which are annoying. Much will de- pend, however, upon the effectiveness of county planning and zoning. Planning commissions of the three counties within the basin recognize the need for setting aside industrial areas. Los Angeles County expects to have a master plan for its portion of the basin com- pleted within a two-year period. If, as expected, San Bernardino -165- and Kern Counties follow suit within the next few years, greater as- surance will be given to an expanding industry which wishes to be protected against indiscriminate urban development. (5) Transportation Projected improvements in trcinsportation, already discussed in Chapter VI, should make the Antelope- Mo jave basin one of the best -served metropolitan areas m the country. At present the chief deficiency is the need for more good interregional highway connec- tions. Most strategic in the development of the basin's growth will be (1) the completion of the Mint Canyon Freeway from Palmdale to San Fernando Valley which will give quicker access to the western portion of the Los Angeles metropolitan area, and (2) the construc- tion of a freeway across the basin which will link present Highways 6 and 66 and make possible a quick interregional by-pass of the cen- ter of Los Angeles. These major thoroughfares slated for completion by 1970 together with other highway improvements which are planned should be a major factor in stimulating the growth of the subject area. The basin's rail facilities are excellent. The area is now served by the three major railroads operating in the Pacific South- west. With the completion of the Southern Pacific's branch line from Summit to Palmdale the area will have good rail connections in all directions. The basin has an excellent prospect of becoming a major -166- rail staging and transfer center for goods moving both m and out of the Southern California area. The air facilities of the Antelope-Mojave basin should likewise be favorable to future growth. Although it is not expected that the basin will become a major air connection for the center of the Los Angeles metropolis, nevertheless all-year flying weather should cause the area to have an increasingly heavy air transport volume as population and urban activities grow. (6) Employment Opportunities The major factor m the growth of the Antelope-Mojave basin in the long run will be the extent to which jobs can be provided for a resident population. The evidence available does not indicate that this area will become a bedroom city of the San Fernando or San Bernardino portions of the Los Angeles coastal area, though with the improvement of highways some home-to-job commuting will probably take place. Moreover, it is not likely that a major resi- dential development of metropolitan proportions will occur without an industrial base, though considerable residential building may be expected for persons who wish to have semidesert residences or for persons who are not directly tied to a place of occupation. As already indicated m Chapter V, industrial development in the basin area should progress at a good rate over the next decade, -167- but no large-scale expansion of new industries can be predicted based on the short-range outlook. However, after 1975 or 1980, the pressures of metropolitan growth in the Los Angeles coastal plain plus the inherent attractions of the area should begin to bring large-scale industry into this basin. After that period, self- generating industrial development should set in as the eco- nomy broadens and diversifies with expanding employment oppor- tunities. The Antelope- Mo jave area should have an adequate labor supply to meet the needs of industrial growth for at least the next two decades. The favorable labor supply may indeed serve as a magnet for attracting industry. Communities within the basin are beginning actively to push industrial growth in order to provide em- ployment as they seek to broaden originally established resort and residential developments into more diversified communities. (7) Recreational Advantages Aside from the natural appeal of the desert which appears to interest a growing number of people, the floor of the basin does not have much to offer in the way of unusual setting or recreational at- tractiveness. The chief benefits to its residents are climate an space. ■168- However, the area is favorably situated with respect to recreational advantages to be found in the surrounding mountains. The basin dweller is much closer than the Los Angeles resident to camping, hunting, and fresh water fishing sites in the surround- ing region as well as to locations m the High Sierra. In the winter- time the area has quick access to warmer deserts as well as to snow sport centers. Many persons have already chosen residence m the basin for recreational reasons and are more likely to do so in the future as the shorter working week and more leisure time provide more recreational opportunity. 2. FACTORS WHICH MAY MODERATE IMMEDIATE URBAN GROWTH Given the tremendous economic and population expansion that is fore- cast for Southern California, it appears inevitable that factors favorable to Antelope- Mo jave basin growth will cause it eventually to be the site for a large urban development. Nevertheless, there are a number of factors which may tend to moderate urban development in the Antelope-Mojave basin for the immediate future. Chief among these are the following: (1) Uncertainty of Adequate Water Supply The evidence now available indicates that many industries are reluctant to consider the basin for plant location because of uncer- tainties as to water availability. Actually, there appears to be enough water in underground sources to support a fairly sizable -169- urban development for many years to come. However, the lack of a firm water supply is at least a psychological obstacle to growth. Should the decision to supplement the Antelope- Mo jave basin by imported water be delayed for some years, this will have a direct impact on the rate of growth for the decades immediately ahead. Furthermore, should competing water needs in other regions re- duce the possibility of furnishing the basin with an adequate supply to meet all foreseeable needs, the rate of growth will be retarded. An early and adequate water supply, therefore, looms large in basin planning and development. (2) Competition with Other Potential Urban Areas The growth rate of the subject area will be less rapid if other areas outside the Los Angeles coastal basin develop advantages that are more favorable to urban activity than can be offered by this semiarid basin. Under present conditions the only area within the perimeter of the Los Angeles metropolitan area which appears to be competitive with the Antelope -Mojave basin is the Ventura area. As has been previously noted, both areas are likely to be subject to urban pressures at about the same time, the rate of growth depend- ing upon how facilities such as water and transportation are developed to meet urban needs. It is our view that under equally favorable con- ditions both areas will move ahead simultaneously. 170- Otherwise it does not appear that any region close to Los Angeles will offer the advantages of Antelope- Mo jave for major metropolitan expansion. It is expected that the San Diego metro- politan area will continue to have a high rate of growth somewhat disassociated from Los Angeles. It is also expected that there will be considerable urban growth m the southern portion of San Joaquin Valley, but not at the expense of Antelope-Mojave. The desert region in the vicinity of Palm Springs will see considerable resort and residential growth, but it does not appear to be the likely site of large industrial expansion. Some small agricul- tural-processing industries have already established in this desert region, but the Palm Springs area is not considered competitive to the more advantageous sites available m the Antelope-Mojave area for large-scale industrial growth, (3) Excessive Land Speculation Growth m the Antelope-Mojave basin could be retarded in the early years of its development by excessive land speculation. In recent months there has been an unusually large number of land transactions for speculative purposes in some areas of the basin. Inflated land values will not only result in slowing down bona fide business investments within the area, but they could place the Antelope-Mojave area at a disadvantage in competition for urban activity with other regions. -171- A certain amount of speculation is natural and to be expected in areas such as this with strong urban potential. The announcement to bring water to the basin could, however, set off an orgy of specu- lative activity such as took place in San Fernando Valley and else- where in the Los Angeles region in the 1920s with unfortunate conse- quences for healthy growth. (4) Availability of Urban Facilities The rate of growth in the Ant elope- Mo jave basin could also be delayed by the failure to provide adequate community facilities such as streets, sewers, or schools. It could likewise be hindered by the failure of local governments to plan adequately for desirable land uses for various urban activities. There is every evidence, how- ever, that these factors will be adequately covered and will not oper- ate as significant growth deterrents. There is some possibility that the more populous sections of Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties may be overdemanding for the expansion of services and facilities in the coastal basin at the expense of the basin on the other side of the mountains. How- ever, both of these counties have now had considerable recent ex- perience with the problems that have resulted from rapid- growing but poorly planned communities in the coastal basin. It may therefore -172- be anticipated that a greater effort will be made to keep abreast of urban developments within Antelope-Mojave. 3. ESTIMATED POPULATION GROWTH In formulating quantitative population estimates for the period 1960- 2020 on the basis of all the factors and considerations previously discussed, it is well to restate the governing premises and assumptions which underlie our survey. In recapitulation, these concern the continued expansion of the national economy and population, the absence of international conflict, the public announcement of Feather River Project plans by 1960, and the deliv- ery of the required volume of imported water to the subject area by 1970. In addition to these fundamental premises certain other assumptions more specifically related to the subject area have been made for purposes of estimating population growth: - There will be no sudden and major cutback in defense activities within the basm for the next five years. Slowly declining defense activities can be absorbed without dislocating consequences for the basm economy. - The freeways to connect the Antelope-Mojave basin with San Fernando Valley and the west side with the east side of the basin will be completed by 1970. - The State of Califorma and local governments within the Antelope- Mojave basin will foster policies of encouraging growth in this area to relieve metropolitaii congestion and to conserve resources in other regions. - Air pollution will be controlled and will not be a deterrent to growth. ■173- Density patterns in the Los Angeles coastal basin will gradually increase, but will not exceed 8, 850 persons per square mile by the year 2020 for the gross urban area of Los Angeles County; 6, 560 for Orange County; 5, 234 for San Bernardino County; and 3, 980 for Riverside County. By 1965 the three counties within the Antelope- Mo jave basin will have developed master plans of land use for their respective areas including suitable reservations for industrial and residen- tial usages. (1) Rate and Magnitude of Population Growth Population estimates have been formulated in the light of all the factors and forces affecting Antelope -Mojave growth discussed in this report as well as on the basis of the foregoing assumptions. These considerations and evaluations lead to the conclusion that the subject area will be the site of what may be properly characterized as a remarkable long-range urban growth, particularly in the light of the relatively small base from which large-scale expansion will start. In quantitative terms it is estimated that the population of the Antelope-Mojave basin will grow from the present figure of 131, 000 to 344, 000 by 1970, spiraling up to 1, 956, 000 m the year 2000 and reaching a figure in the neighborhood of 3, 600, 000 by 2020. These estimates are presented in Table 30, following this page. The rate of population growth for the area is also depicted graphically on the -174- TABLE 30 PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH FOR THE ANTELOPE-MOJAVE BASIN 1960-2020 August 1957 nty 5nt 3.se Kern County Portion Percent Number Increase Total Number Percent Increase 5, 805 20,497 253. 1 21, 939 60,015 173.6 36,000 131,000 2* 42,000 56, 1* 167,000 178.3* 5 67,000 59.5 344,000 106.0 3 102,000 52.2 703,000 104.4 8 154,000 50.9 4 220,000 42.2 4 291,000 32.2 B 363,000 24.4 1,302,000 85.3 1,956,000 50.2 2,886,000 47.5 3,609,000 25.0 TABLE 30 PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH FOR THE ANTELOPE-MOJAVE BASIN 1960-2020 August 1957 Los Angeles County San Bernardino County Portion Port ion Kern Co unty Portion Percent Total Percent Percent Percent Year Number Increase Number Increase Number Increase Number Increase 1940 7, 729 8,405 5, 805 21, 939 1950 16,084 108.2 23,434 178.8 20,497 253. 1 60,015 173.6 1957 1960 1970 1980 53,000 42,000 36,000 131,000 72,000 347.6* 53,000 126.2* 42,000 56. 1* 167,000 178.3* 165,000 129. 2 112,000 111.5 67,000 59.5 344,000 106.0 361,000 118.8 240,000 114.3 102,000 52.2 703,000 104.4 1990 671,000 85. 9 477,000 98.8 154,000 50.9 1, 302,000 85.3 2000 1,042,000 55.3 784,000 64.4 220,000 42.2 1, 956,000 50.2 2010 1,463,000 40.4 1, 132,000 44.4 291, 000 32.2 2,886,000 47.5 2020 1,869,000 27.8 1, 377,000 21.6 363,000 24.4 3,609, 000 25.0 *For decade 1950-1960 accompanying chart, following this page. For comparative purposes population projections for the nation, state, and four coastal counties are shown. While the above numerical growth is impressive it should be noted that for the decade 1960-1970 the rate of growth (in terms of percentage increases in relation to the preceding period) will not be as spectacular as the decades from 1940 to 1960. This obtains because no type of urban expansion is expected to take place in the immediate future which will match the accelerated growth produced by military and defense activities of the war and postwar years. Nevertheless, even though the industrial development of the Antelope- Mo jave basin will be at moderate rates until about 1970, we believe that the population increase of some 200, 000 projected between the present time and that date is quite reasonable in view of the urban base which has already been established. The announce- ment of the availability of Feather River water, as assumed, by 1960 will induce the migration of urban activities including some new industries into the subject basin. Increasing land costs and shortages in the Los Angeles coasted, basin during the coming years should also accelerate the rate of dispersal. This should be re- flected in a rise in urban residences and subdivisions accompanied by a growth in supporting business services and community facilities. -175- I accompanying chart, following this page. For comparative purposes population projections for the nation, state, and four coastal counties are shown. While the above numerical growth is impressive it should be noted that for the decade 1960-1970 the rate of growth (in terms of percentage increases in relation to the preceding period) will not be as spectacular as the decades from 1940 to 1960. This obtains because no type of urban expansion is expected to take place in the immediate future which will match the accelerated growth produced by military and defense activities of the war and postwar years. Nevertheless, even though the industrial development of the Antelope- Mo jave basin will be at moderate rates until about 1970, we believe that the population increase of some 200, 000 projected between the present time and that date is quite reasonable in view of the urban base which has already been established. The announce- ment of the availability of Feather River water, as assumed, by 1960 will induce the migration of urban activities including some new industries into the subject basin. Increasing land costs and shortages in the Los Angeles coastal basin during the coming years should also accelerate the rate of dispersal. This should be re- flected in a rise in urban residences and subdivisions accompanied by a growth in supporting business services and community facilities. 175- After 1970 the subject area may be expected to register its greatest numerical gains in population. The assumed availability of sufficient water and the pressure of growing densities in the Los Angeles coastal area will be the major causes for the spurt in growth. The volume of growth will be greatest between 1980 and 2020, when a numerical increase of slightly less than 3, 000, 000 is expected to take place. The possibility of population trends in excess of the above should not be disregarded. It is quite possible that the passage of the decades will reveal higher population increases than our predic- tions. This could happen, for example, should our presumably con- servative assumptions as to a somewhat declining birth rate after 1980 and probable future population densities in the coastal area prove to be conservative in fact. Likewise the possibility of a lower rate of growth must be recognized. Forces and circumstances may well change over a 60 -year period which could dUute the forecast growth. Neverthe- less, we are prone to conclude that with our present lights the above population estimate of an ultimate 3, 600, 000 is realistic. Even if this should fall off considerably, however, it would still comprise a large metropolitan conamunity with correspondingly high water service requirements. ■176- In this connection it may be commented that the above fore- casts of population growth are somewhat conservative in comparison with those recently prepared by the Regional Planning Commission of Los Angeles County. This commission, using the density method of projection, has forecast a population of 800, 000 by 1975 for the Los Angeles County portion of Antelope Valley alone, and forecast a higher rate of growth for the period thereafter than is projected in this study. (2) Population Growth by County Sections The Los Angeles County portion of the subject basin is expected to contain 1, 869, 000, or slightly over half of the area's population by 2020. This part of the basin will grow at a somewhat greater rate until 1980 and thereafter with a substantially greater volume. The more rapid rate of growth for the Los Angeles County area (mainly Antelope Valley) during the next two decades is predicated upon its relatively more advanced stage of development, more favor- able land sites for urban activities, and the further development of industrial activities based upon already established aircraft indus- tries. The San Bernardino portion of the Ant elope- Mo jave area will also grow to substantial proportions, reaching a population of 1, 377, 000 by 2020. It will have the greatest rate of growth for any of the three -177- counties for the decades 1980-ZOlO. Its growth likewise is based upon substantial industrial development, though as it now appears this development may be somewhat less centered and less integrated than in Los Angeles County. This part of the basin will continue to have much attractiveness for large residential developments. As urban expansion increases in both the San Bernardino and Los Angeles parts of the basin, considerable residence-to- job commut- ing may be expected to take place between the two areas. The portion of the basin which lies in Kern County is not only the smallest in area but farthest away from the center of the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Moreover, a large part of the Kern County area topographically suitable for urban development lies within permanent military reservations. For these reasons, this part of the basin will experience less urban growth between 1960- 2020 than the other regions. The population for this area is esti- mated to reach 100, 000 by 1980 and 363, 000 by 2020. A consider- able portion of this population will likely be composed of persons who work in industries in Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. {3) Location and Density Population and urban activities can be expected to grow at lower densities in the Antelope- Mo jave basin than in the coastal I -178- basin area. This will involve a greater absorption of land for all urban uses. In some areas, however, quite heavy concentrations of population may be expected. Needless to say, the pattern of urban spread will be greatly influenced by the pattern of imported water delivery. The fastest growing section of the Los Angeles County portion will be Study Area No. 3*. This area is also expected to contain the largest percentage of the population by 2020. Moreover there will be considerable urban growth in Areas No. 2, No. 6, and No. 7, Areas No. 2 and No. 7, because of their proximity to the mountains, should become favored residential locations. In the San Bernardino County portion of the basin, urban growth will be a little less centered than in Los Angeles County. Areas No. 8, No. 9, No. 10, and No. 13 may be expected to have both industrial and residential growth. Area No, 9, which has closest access to the eastern end of the Los Angeles coastal basin, will grow at a more rapid rate. Area No. 12, because of its dis- tance from the Los Angeles metropolitan area, and Area No. 14, because of its mountainous character, will account for only a small proportion of the county's population during the period under study. *These areas have been geographically defined by the Department of Water Resources for purposes of this survey. See Map D, follow- ing this page. -179- GEOGRAPHIC STUDY AREAS OF ANT ELOPE- MO JAVE BASIN* " A? defined b; CaUrornia Stale Deparimeni ^f Water Rciouicei Urban growth in the Kern Coiinty part of the basin will be greatest in Study Area No. 1^ since this district is in closest proximity to the industrial community that will be centered around the Palmdale-Lancaster communities. Areas No. 4 and No. 11 will have a slower rate of growth though they will become the sites of considerable residential population and some industrial development. Since agriculture will gradually decline, as discussed in Chapter III, farm population will fall off by 19 80 to an insignifi- cant proportion in relation to the whole. The population fore- cast for the area will be essentially of an urban character. Even with the sizable ultimate population of 3, 600, 000 estimated for the subject area, only a portion of its habitable acreage will be placed under urban usage. Thus, even assum- ing a low gross urban use factor for all purposes of one acre per family (3, 5 to 3. 7 persons), there is absorbed only about one million acres of the total area. This contrasts with the 3, 159, 000 acres of habitable land available in the area. 4. EFFECT OF WATER COSTS ON MUNICIPAL USE In the above estimates no distinction has been made with respect to the minimum and maximum assumed prices of imported water. Unlike -180- Urban growth in the Kern Coiinty part of the basin will be greatest m Study Area No. 1, since this district is in closest proximity to the industrial community that will be centered around the Palmdale-Lancaster communities. Areas No. 4 and No. 11 will have a slower rate of growth though they will become the sites of considerable residential population and some industrial development. Since agriculture will gradually decline, as discussed in Chapter III, farm population will fall off by 1980 to an insignifi- cant proportion in relation to the whole. The population fore- cast for the area will be essentially of an urban character. Even with the sizable ultimate population of 3, 600, 000 estimated for the subject area, only a portion of its habitable acreage will be placed under urban usage. Thus, even assum- ing a low gross urban use factor for all purposes of one acre per family (3, 5 to 3. 7 persons), there is absorbed only about one million acres of the total area. This contrasts with the 3, 159, 000 acres of habitable land available in the area. 4. EFFECT OF WATER COSTS ON MUNICIPAL USE In the above estimates no distinction has been made with respect to the minimum and maximum assumed prices of imported water. Unlike -180- water for irrigation purposes, in which the price element becomes a decisive factor as to profitability, costs for water within the assumed range of $50 to $100 per acre-foot are not too significant for municipal and industrial purposes. For residential purposes water costs up to as high as $100 per acre -foot are not a major factor in determining location. Many urban users in both the subject area and in the metropolitan community are now paying rates approaching the minimum assumed rate of $50 per acre -foot. While the $100 rate would admittedly be considered high for residential water, this factor alone will not serve to retard settle- ment since so many other considerations are more important. -181 APPENDIX A GOODWIN J. KNIGHT HARVEY O. BANKS Governor ADDRESS REPLY TO Director HOO S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles 15 P.O. 80X15718 MAdison 6-1515 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Los Angeles July 22, 1957 Booz, Allen & Hamilton Management Consultants 550 South Flower Street Los Angeles 17, California Attention. Mr. Ralph Jones Gentlemen; Reference is made to the provisions of the agreement between your organization and the Department of Water Resources, dated April 1, 1957, providing for an economic survey of the Antelope -Mojave area. The agree- ment contains the following provisions: "Said survey is to include: A description of the area's present economic characteristics, under assumption of ample water supplies for the area at assumed delivery cost for water to be specified by the Department of Water Resources , and evaluation of the area's potential development, including agriculture, military, commercial, and indus- trial. " (Emphasis supplied). Pursuant to the foregoing, it is the purpose of this letter to provide your organization with the price assumptions for imported water you are to employ m the Ant elope -Mojave area. As indicated to you at the time of negotiation of the foregoing agreement, the prices for water delivery quoted hereinafter were de^^loped specifically for your use m making your study and are intended to be used only to determine the effect of price of imported water upon the probable magnitude of utilization of such water in the area of investigation. It is hoped to cover generally the entire range of prices, which may possibly be assigned for the delivery of imported water m the area of investigation in the future As you undoubtedly know, the actual price for delivery of imported water in this and other potential service areas of the Feather River Project is a policy matter upon which no deci- sion has as yet been made. Booz, Allen & Hamilton -2- July 22, 1957 Bearing in mind the foregoing considerations, the Department of Water Resources requests that your organization in its economic survey of the Antelope-Mojave area assume the following upper and lower values of prices for imported water in the area of investigation: Agricultural water delivered at farmer's head gate: $25 per acre-foot and $50 per acre-foot Municipal and industrial water delivered to municipal system: $50 per acre-foot and $100 per acre-foot Your representatives have indicated to us that in order to carry out the economic survey of the Antelope-Mojave area, it is necessary that this Department provide them with a date when Feather River Project water may be expected to be made available in the area. For the purposes of your study it is requested that you assume the year 1970 as the date when such water will be made available to the investigational areas. You, of course, will realize that this date is purely for study purposes. The determination of the delivery date for Feather River Project water in the area can be made only after detailed analysis of the timing and need for imported water throughout the remainder of the potential project service area, together with completion of other phases of the alternative Feather River Project route studies now under way. In view of the recognized uncertainty as to timing of availability of imported water in the area, you may wish to evaluate in your study the effect on economic development therein which would result with changes in the foregoing assumed date. It is hoped that the foregoing information will be adequate for your purposes and should your staff have any further questions, we will be happy to discuss them with you at any time. Very truly yours, HARVEY O. BANKS Director of Water Resources By Max Bookman District Engineer APPENDIX B APPENDIX B (1) APPENDIX B PERSONS INTERVIEWED OR CONSULTED (In Alphabetical Order) Tracey Abell Los Angeles City Planning Department Los Angeles, California Robert Aikins, Manager and Director Antelope Valley Feather River Project Association Palmdale, California Ned Arthur Mineral Section Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce Los Angeles, California Roy Barnes Farm Advisor, Kern County University of California Agricultural Extension Service Bakersfield, California Newton Bass Real Estate Apple Valley, California Edwin Bates, Manager, Regional Office United States Department of Comnaerce Los Angeles, California Frank Baxter, Assistant Division Sales Manager Permanente Cement Company Los Angeles, California Gordon Bennett, Special Assistant on Aviation White House Washington, D. C. Harry Bergh, Director Orange County Planning Department Santa Ana, California APPENDIX B (2) Lieutenant Colonel S. L. Berry Chief of Facilities Branch for Deputy Chief of Staff for Development United States Air Force Washington, D. C. James A. Beutel Farm Advisor, Los Angeles County University of California Agricultural Extension Service Los Angeles, California Marion Blair, Administrator Civil Engineer Planning Division Los Angeles County Road Department Los Angeles California Robert Bloesser, Assistant Director Industrial Division Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce Los Angeles, California L. J. Borstelmann, Director Ventura County Planning Commission Ventura, California Forrest Branch, Vice President, Administrative Service American Potash and Chemical Corporation Los Angeles, California Milton Breivogel, Director of Planning Regional Planning Commission Los Angeles County Los Angeles, California H. S. Brooks Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Property and Installations - Navy Washington, D. C. William Brophy, Vice President, Marketing Southwestern Portland Cement Company Los Angeles, California APPENDIX B (3) Colonel W. M. Brown Executive Officer Edwards Air Force Base Edwards, California Patricia Budge R. H. Osbrink Manufacturing Company- Los Angeles, California Dan E. Bundy, Senior Planning Engineer Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Los Angeles, California Robert Burch Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Property and Installations - Air Force Washington, D. C. Frank Bury Mettler-Bury Ranch Antelope Valley, California Gerald Busch, Head, Economics Section Lockheed Aircraft Corporation Burbank, California Edward Carpenter, Secretary-Manager Ventura County Chamber of Commerce Ventura, California Captain Carruthers Public Works Officer Naval Ordnance Test Station China Lake, California Whitford B. Carter Lancaster, California George M. Cary, District Airport Engineer United States Department of Commerce Civil Aeronautics Administration Los Angeles, California APPENDIX B (4) Captain F. A, Chanault Executive Officer Naval Ordnance Test Station China Lake, California Dan C Cherrier, Planning Director Kern County Planning Commission Bakersfield, California Austin Chiles, Appraiser Appraisal Department Bank of America Los Angeles, California L. A. Cochran, Jr. Administrative Officer Marine Corps Supply Center Barstow, California Gerhart Colm, Chief Economist National Planning Association Washington, D. C. Charles Colby, President Lancaster-Palmdale Savings and Loan Association Palmdale, California Robert G. Conway, Principal Planner Kern County Planning Commission Bakersfield, California Dr. Lome D. Cook Pomona College Claremont, California Chester Coover Antelope Valley Soil Conservation District Lancaster, California Irvey Cotey, District Manager California Electric Power Company Randsburg, California APPENDIX B (5) Robert A. Covington, Director San Bernardino County Planning Commission San Bernardino, California J. H. Creed, Engineer Division of Highways District IX Bishop, California C. T. Curtis, Manager Littlerock Irrigation District Littlerock, California Colonel L. K. Davis Commanding Officer Marine Corps Auxiliary Air Station Mojave, California Lewis E. De Voss Field Representative Department of Employment Brigadier General R. B. DeWitt Commanding Officer Marine Corps Supply Center Barstow, California Edward F. Dibble Consulting Engineer Redlands, California Lee Dolch, Agricultural Examiner San Bernardino County Agricultural Commission Office Victorville, California Fred W. Dorman, Farm Advisor and County Director, San Bernardino County University of California Agricultural Extension Service San Bernardino, California W K. Downey, Chief Counsel California Portland Cement Company Los Angeles, California APPENDIX B (6) Cecil Dunn, Manager, Rate Department Southern Counties Gas Company Los Angeies, California Chester Dye Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Los Angeles, California Dr. Ernest A. Engelbert • Associate Professor of Political Science University of California at Los Angeles Los Angeles, California George Erickson, General Industrial Agent Southern Pacific Company Los Angeles, California John Fairweather, Manager San Bernardino County Board of Trade San Bernardino, California Lowell Felt, Engineer Palmdale Irrigation District Palmdale, California John Ferry _ Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Air Force I Washington, D. C. Milton Fireman Extension Soils Specialist University of California Riverside, California Joe Fox, Publisher Ridgecrest, California George Franz Office of Assessor, Los Angeles County Los Angeles, California APPENDIX B (7) Carl Frisen, Senior Research Technician State Department of Finance Sacramento, California J. G. Fry, Chief Engineer, Coast Lines Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Los Angeles, California Lloyd Fusby, Western Manager Pacific Coast Borax Division United States Borax and Chemical Corporation Los Angeles, California Lieutenant Colonel W. N. Gaylord Director of Personnel George Air Force Base Captain J. W. Giles III Director of Shore Establishment Development and Maintenance Division Washington, D. C B. P. Glenn, Manager Lancaster Chamber of Commerce Lancaster, California Joe Godde, Rancher Antelope Valley, California Major Robert Green Officer in Charge United States Air Force Plant No. 42 Palmdale, California Arthur B. Groos, Industrial Director San Bernardino County Board of Trade San Bernardino, California Martin Hall, Manager State Department of Employment Office Lancaster, California APPENDIX B (8) Warren Hansen, Manager Victorville Chamber of Commerce Victorville, California Clarence Harling, District Manager California Interstate Telephone Company Victorville, California Lieutenant Colonel M. C Harris Military Assistant on Construction to Controller Department of Defense Washington, D. C Dr. Phillip M. Hauser Chairman, Department of Sociology University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois William Hendrie, Manager Barstow Chamber of Commerce Bar stow, California Rex L. Henry Farm Advisor, Los Angeles County University of California Agricultural Extension Service Los Angeles, California Joseph P. Hertel Farm Advisor, San Bernardino County University of California Agricultural Extension Service R. A. Hertzler Office of Undersecretary for Civil Affairs United States Army Washington, D. C. Dr. Robert Hilburn Superintendent of Schools Barstow, California Andrew Hinshaw Division of Research and Statistics State Board of Equalization Los Angeles, California APPENDIX B (9) Lawrence Hoelscher, Deputy Comptroller Department of the Army Washmgton, D. C Walter Hoffman, Hydraulic Engmeer United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey Los Angeles, California Edward Holden, Division Head North County Zoning Division Regional Planning Commission, Los Angeles County Los Angeles, California Jay Homan, Planning Technician Planning Commission, County of San Bernardino San Bernardino, California John Hoyt Farm Advisor, Kern County University of California Agriculturcil Extension Service William Huffman Farm Advisor, Los Angeles County University of California Agricultural Extension Service George Hummel, Realtor Rosamond, California Lieutenant Colonel O. J. Iddins Acting Chief of Staff for Installations Edwards Air Force Base Edwards, California Conrad Jameson, Vice President Security-First National Bank Los Angeles, California Ray Janson, Regional Planner Regional Planning Commission, Los Angeles County Lancaster, California APPENDIX B (10) Joseph Jensen, Chairman Metropolitan Water District Los Angeles, California Charles Johnson Quartz Hill, California W. H Johnson, Manager of Properties Union Pacific Railroad Company Los Angeles, California Frank Jones Investment Securities and Real Estate Los Angeles, California Roger Jones, Assistant Director United States Bureau of the Budget Washington, D. C Mr. Kane District Highway Engineer District VIII San Bernardino, California Ray Kerby Design Division Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Los Angeles, California Robert W. King Public Relations Department Southern Pacific Railroad Los Angeles, California James Koteas, Personnel Manager South Gate Magnesium and Aluminum Company South Gate, California L. B Krauter Kern County Agricultural Commissioner's Office Tehachapi, California APPENDIX B (11) James B. Laing, Jr. Reports and Analysis Section Bank of America Los Angeles, California Lieutenant Colonel H. L. Lantz Executive Officer Marine Corps Auxiliary Air Station Mojave, California B. H. O. Lauterbach Executive Secretary Ventura County Farm Bureau Ventura, California J. A. Lawson Superintendent of Schools Rosamond, California Colonel G. Laven, Jr. Commanding Officer George Air Force Base R. W. Lazensky California State Department of Finance E, J. Le Fevre Assistant to Director of Sales Contracts - Military Convair Division of General Dynamics San Diego, California L. J. Le Roy, Industrial Agent Santa Fe Railway Los Angeles, California James Lewis, Director Research Division Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce Los Angeles, California Delwin L. Liddle Farm Advisor, San Bernardino County University of California Agricultural Extension Service APPENDIX B (12) Thomas M. Little Extension Vegetable Crops Specialist University of California Riverside, California Harold Loudermilk, Conservationist Mojave Desert Soil Conservation District R. G. Lunt, Division Engineer Department of County Engineer Water Works Division Los Angeles, California Dee Lynch, Design Division Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Los Angeles, California George Marr, Section Head Population Research Section Regional Planning Commission, Los Angeles County Los Angeles, California Albert W. Marsh Extension Irrigation and Soils Specialist University of California Riverside, California H A. Mayhew Assistant to Senior Vice President Facilities and Manufacturing Douglas Aircraft Company Santa Monica, California William McCandless, Assistant Director United States Bureau of the Budget Washington, D. C L. D. McCorkingdale Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner's Office Lancaster, California Gilbert G McCoy, Manager Industrial Department Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce Los Angeles, California I APPENDIX B (13) Felix McGinnis, Jr. , Vice President and Secretary Southwestern Portland Cement Company Los Angeles, California R. B. McNutt, Manager Bank of America Lancaster, California Michael J. Meehan, Director Office of Business Economics Department of Commerce Washington, D. C. Nat Mendelsohn Real Estate Los Angeles, California B. W. Messer Public Relations Department Lockheed Aircraft Corporation Palmdale, California C. E. Metter, Assistant Director for Contracts Convair Division of General Dynamics San Diego, California Howard Miller, Assistant General Manager Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce Los Angeles, California Lawrence Moore Los Angeles County Engineer Office Aviation Division Los Angeles, California C. Seldon Morley Agricultural Commissioner, Kern County Bakersfield, California Richard C Morse, Jr , Realtor Apple Valley, California Eric Munz, Rancher Antelope Valley, California APPENDIX B (16) F. J. Rohring, Industrial Engineer Southern California Edison Company- Los Angeles, California Richard Rubidge Director of Industrial Engineering Lockheed Aircraft Corporation Burbank, California Charles A. Salverson Farm Advisor, Los Angeles County University of California Agricultural Extension Service William Schaub, Chief, Defense Group United States Bureau of the Budget Washington, D. C L. Schwartz Los Angeles County Engineer Office Aviation Division Los Angeles, California Edna M. Scoffield, Secretary- Office of Los Angeles County Assessor Lancaster, California Dr. R. H. Scofield, Chief Deputy Los Angeles County Livestock Department Los Angeles, California H. B. Scroggs, Realtor Little rock, California George Seals Adelanto, California Edward E. Shephard Farm Advisor, Los Angeles County University of California Agricultural Extension Service Clarence Shetter, Rancher Antelope Valley, California APPENDIX B (17) Lester Small, Vice President Riverside Cement Company Los Angeles, California C. D. Smith, District Manager Southern California Edison Company Lancaster, California Cecil Smith, President Mojave Chamber of Commerce Mojave, California Harold V. Smith, Rancher Helendale, California Jerry Smith, District Manager California Electric Power Company Barstow, California J. S. Smithson, Vice President, Administration North American Aviation, Inc. Los Angeles, California Max R. Stanley, Director Flight Department Northrop Aircraft, Inc. Hawthorne, California Harry Staves Los Angeles City Planning Department Los Angeles, California Colonel J, T. Stewart Deputy Assistant for Development Programing for Deputy Chief of Staff for Research and Development United States Air Force Washington, D. C Smith Swords, Jr. , Manager Bank of America Palmdale, California E. T. Tilford Assistant State Highway Engineer District Vn Los Angeles, California APPENDIX B (18) B. W Troxel Associate Mining Geologist California State Division of Mines Los Angeles, California George Tucker, Executive Secretary California Cattle Feeders' Association Los Angeles, California Lieutenant Colonel W. J. Van Buren Services Division Marine Corps Supply Center Barstow, California Judge Edward Volk., Justice of the Peace VictorviUe, California Vern Ward, District Manager Southern California Gas Company Lancaster, California William O. Watson Farm Advisor, San Bernardino County University of California Agricultural Extension Service John Watts Office of Assessor, Kern County Bakersfield, California David Weeks Professor of Agricultural Economics University of California Berkeley, California James T, Weir, Technical Associate Air Force Plant No. 42 Palmdale , California Elmer P, Wheaton, Chief Missiles Engineer Douglas Aircraft Company Santa Monica, California Roger White, Director Antelope Valley-Feather River Project Association Mojave, California f APPENDIX B (19) Paul N. Williams, Economic Analyst California State Chamber of Commerce Los Angeles, California George Winright Farm Advisor, Los Angeles County University of California Agricultural Extension Service Los Angeles, California Kenneth Wolff Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner Office Los Angeles, California James Woo, Rancher Antelope Valley, California Robert Wood, Editor and Publisher Boron Enterprise Boron, California Dr. Loren Wright State Department of Natural Resources Division of Mines Los Angeles, California Leonard Yagortz, Mayor, Barstow District Manager, Southwest Gas Company Barstow, California George J. Ziser, District Manager California Department of Veterans' Affairs San Bernardino, California I rOWM 2 APPPOVKD DY THE ATTORNIV GENERAL .RCV lO ^f•t SlATl ACCNClf — ( ) Ol#T Of FiNANCt -( I CotiTKOlLlPI - ( > STATE OF CALIFORNIA STANDARD AGRELMtNT Attachment No. 1 NUMBHR_.5J.-J3ib3.02_ THIS AGREEMENT, M.ulc and entered into this .IS.t day of -/-iprl].. _ _ , 195.7., , at Sjcrjmcnto, County of S-icr-inicnto, State of California, by and between State of California, through its duly elected or ippointcd, qu.illticd and acting Cllief^-.Piviai o.n..(?i\.Hdrdnis:brat4nn peprirtiiieivt. of _ v'^'itciv.^''--.^ Tillc of officer aciiog for Star* DepartmtDl or ocher agtacy hereinafter called the State, and .,30(3^^...r..•.^].l?:^.JV XIcTdltori hereinafter called the Contractor. ^X'lTNESSETH: That the Contractor for and in consideration of the covenants, conditions, agreements, and stipulations of the State hereinafter expressed, docs hereby agree to furnish to the State services and materials, as follows: (Set forth service to be rendered by Contractor, amount to be paid Contractor, time for performance or completion, and attach plans and specifications, if any.) 1. 2. Contractor is to co.oduct an economic survey for the Department of Water Resources covering that portion of the Antelope Valley and Hojave River Area, in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Kern Coijnties which lies within the economically practicable service area of the i-'eather River Project. 6aid survey report is to include: a description of the ar-ea's present economic characteristics; unaer assumptions of araple water supplies for the area at assujiied delivery cosi> for i.ijater to be specified by "Ghe Departiiient of Water Resources, an evaluation of the area's potential development, including agricultural, military, commercial, and industrial; estimates of payment capacity for water by major uses; and a quantitative estimate of population grovrth by decades for the perioQ 19ou through 2C20, together udth an estimate of the character and type of probable land use by decades for the same period of time, with the end objective that all of the foregoing information be analyzed and sub- mitted in such a manner that the Department of Water Resources can use said information as a basis lor estimating water requirements by major use categories for said area and covering Lhe same period of time. The Department of Water Resources will furnish its estimates of water requirements based on the survey inl'onnation to the Contractor for inclusion in the Contractor's final report. The conducting of this investigation by the Contractor shall include periodic progress dis- cussions vjith t.he Department at approximately one month intervals. The Contractor shall also confer with those major interests that would be affected by the availability or lack of availability of adequate viater supplies for the area, with the objective of providing reasonable opportunity for expressions of viexjpoint by said major interests during the course of x-he survey. The services performed by the Contractor pursuant to this agreement shall be completed and reported upon in accordance with the following schedule: ;Luachirient ^o. 1 a. By ocpluiibei- 16, IV';?, a px-elimJ nary rerjort, tor^ether with two coi^ieG thercol', eovt.'i'in;; i.lic matters specifiGd in Liection 1, above, will be submlLted to i.h>' Depaj'tment of Water Hcsom^ces. b. By December 2, lyS'?, the i'inal report, together with i.'ive copies thereof aJ Departiiient of ■;:' tor iipsowcc.s By - - ~- N»me oi Stitt «genc7 By F. James Iiurphy 120 liontgomery Street Chief,. Division of ..Adiranisti;ation 5.