LARD USE AND FARM ORGANIZATION
Ot A NEW IflRIGATION PROJECT
JFFERSOI COUNTI, OREGON
by
HOWARD
A THESIS
tibmitte4 to
OREGON STATE COLLEGE
in partial fn)fillment of
the requiremmts for the
degree of
L&STER OF SCIENX
June l9.l
Redacted for privacy
Redacted for privacy
Rad at Department
Agricultural &onoinic
Redacted for privacy
an of School Gr
Redacted for privacy
Dean of Graduate School
is precented Mar 10) 191
Typed by Mary lawrence
AClcNoWLDoMENT
Thaiks are due Dr. C. V. Plath who has supervised this study
since its inception. Iny helpful suggetiona have been received,
although the author alone must bear the responsibility for their
presentatiou, }e rould also gratefully a
cooperation of the farmers, without which
possible.
The ctheerful assistance of the staff of Jefferson County
Itura]. xtension Office deserves recognition, as does that of
the Bureau of Reclv,*tton and the North Unit Deschutes Irrigation
District. To *31 who have given help and encourages*nt in the
preparation of this study, the author offers his t
TABLE 0? C0rFTS
INTRoDUcTION
The Problem In Its Ora1l Setting
The Problem In Its Lc-al Setting
General Description of the Study Area
ETHOD OF STUDY
Sample Selection
AND IAN!) USE
Lend Classification
Soils
Lend Capability Classification
Burau of Reclamation Irrigability Cisseification
2
14
7
8
12
12
13
18
Lnd Development
1
Leveling Costs
22
27
Irrigation of 'Nonirriab
r*s Supply
Water Delivery
Water Cost
Water Use
29
30
30
Land Uee
FARM ORoANIZATION
Aaount of Reeourcei
Tot*1 Investment
Land and Equipment
Siss of Farm
Ladino Acreage
Use of R.sources
142
146
148
So
OwnerBhip of Eseources
Operatora Starting Net Worth
Tenure and Tenancy
Borrowed Capital
suw.&Rr
61
67
L&N1) USE AND FARM OE1LNIZATION
ON A NFW IRRIGATION PROJECT
Ji?FgON COUNT!, OREGON
INTDUCTION
Recisnation of arid lands in the western states through
irrigation will pr*vide an iaportant part of the future increase
in food production in the United States. These lands will also pro-
vide the last great frontier of eett]iaent in this country. It is
expected that fedsr*l money will build the irrigation projects and
that federal law will govern their settlemint, The Reelsastion ?roject Act, 1939 (12, p. 92) provides for the variation of onetruaa.
tion charges in accordance with the productivity of the land.
The
COlumbia Basin Project Act, 193 (12, p. 700) provides for the
variation of fare unit size in *000rdance with land productivity.
In order to judge these proviian it is necessary to develop factual
inforeation on the relationship of economic productivity to physical
Land c]aeei!ication procedures, With this end in mind a research
project was set up to study land use adjustment over a five-year per-.
iod on a new irrigation project in Central Oregon. Thu paper
sxaminse land use md farm organisation for the first two years of
settlement. It is expected that th. study will continue for
another three years, by which time fare dsvelope.nt and land use
ad.justeent will be largely completed,
blem In Its Overall Setting
estimated that
The Natural Resources Board tn 1936 (8, p. 9)
there are more than $0 million acres pf potentially irrigable land
in the 17 western states. Lass than 20 million acres of this were
irrigated by 191.5.
Projects under construction or under consider*
tion by the Bureau of Reclamation at that time would provide water
for another 20 million acres.
"To provide for the creation of homes and of opportunities
1 living" is the "ultimate objactive of reclamation..
). Successful settlement of irrigation projects has
depended, to a considerable degree, on the ability of settlers to
p.
meet the repayment of construction charges (2, p. 1S3). These
charges have been b*sed on the cost of project construction to the
Federal Government, tempered, of necessity, by the settlers' ability
to repay, and have been interest free. In recent contracts for
repayment, the annual charge has been based upon the total annual
returns (1, p. 31) of the project in relation to
I
annual returns over a period of years.1
In order to take advantage of th. greater benefits accruing to
lands of higher productivity and their consequent greater repayment
1. "The term 'annual returns' shall mean the amount of annual gross
returns per acre of the area in cultivation within the project
contract unit involved, and the tern 'nornal returns' for any
year shall mean the weighted average of the annual returns of
those ten years, of the 13 year period covering said year and
the twelve years preceding it, in which the annual returns are
the highest." Reclamation Project Act of 1939, sec, 2(b) (12,
p. $89).
ability, contracts have varied repayrnent charges in accordance with
land clasaification differences. St*mm of the Bureau of Reclamation
(3,
p, 107) stated that
repaaent contracts would be varied by
land clase if adequate information were available which could be
used as the basis for establishing the range and level of i
This study will help to fill that gap.
The continued prosperity and increasing
pulation in this
have directed attention beyond the recent period of surplus
agricultural production to the posibi1ity of a future limit to the
domesticallyu-prodticed food supply.
In an era of full employment
consideration is given to the beet use of our resources to the end
of full productiøn, "If the highest social gain
highest productivity per person, we should hesitate to force by leg-
islative means r.duotn in sise of farm in areaa of high productivity or an increase in etse of farm in areas of low productivity
beyond that which would occur through competitive forces. Fare
management studies ahoy that by so doing th. productivity per
person is reduced in both types of areas' (, p. 7).
This øhould be compared to the view expressed in the Columbia
Basin Project Act of "farm units of sufficient acreage for the
support of an average-sised family at a suitable level of living"
(12,
700). If, in providing a desirable maximum number of farm
homes, we are restricting the desirable maximum of fare production
the Bupe*u of Reclamation attitude may need to be reconsidered
It
is expected that this study will indicate the presenc. or absence,
b
and th influenca, of economies of scal. on irrFated farms in this
area. The principles observed here may also govern lend use on other
pro jec
The proble
ed capital is ooiimon to most settlers on new
irrigation projects. Of the fazns undar study-, operator. with low
starting capital have approached thi problem of settlement in ltfl7
different
Some of them are--.renting, borrowing heavily, part-.
time farming,
U units, crop sharing, and developing at a
comparatively
w rate, In time, a comparison of the relative
uccoss of the
methods should be possible,
Any additioni to the available information on the rate and
amount of capital development that is desirable, or necessary-, on a
new irrigation project, will be welcomed by all planning and
extension personnel connected with these levelopments.
iv..year study will provide an increase in knowledge in
these three areas, Thie present report may only fairly be judged in
its relation to the overall study. Its task is to la the ground
work and point out the direction of future investigation for the
remaining years of the study. Some of its weaknesses may lie in
that dirtio.
!
Problem
2! Local Setting
The locale of the study is the Worth Unit Deec}zutss irrigation
District in Jefferson County, Oregon, cortonly known as the North
Unit.
It is a post-war development of the Bureau of Rselamation
which has been rapidly settled under the ispetu of high prices.
The juxtaposition of two areas of qujt dissimilar tpograpby, which
were to come under irrigation at practically the ecme time, Invited
their comparison. A research project was conceived which would
permit study of the adjustment made to topographic and soil condition* by the farmers in thee. two areas, It was meant to be more of
a guide to future action than * help to the present settlers in the
district,
The project wa
et up with the following stated objectivee..-
(1) To determine the adjustments in land use made on conaarciml
fsi.ily farms located on difforint grades of land as the farms bscome
established under irrigation; (2) ?o examine causes for land use
adjustments; (3) To assemble information which will be useful
making recommendations
i
as to size of farms and land use on future
irrigation projects.
The first farm reoods were taken in November and Decber of
]$I9 and covered settler,' progress to that date. Second-year records
were taken a year later. This study iø based upon an analysis of the
two years' records.
eri,tion of the Studr Area
The North Unit contains O,000 irrigable acres.
It lies to the
east of the Cascade Nountsine, about 100 miles south of
lun!bia
at The Dallas. The climate is characteristic of the semi-arid
intermountain region. Elevation of the area studied is 2200
00
feet above sea level. The growing season is about 130 frost free
days.extending froa id Way to the first of October, The annual
precipitation averages about nine inches. Six inches of this nor
ua11y fall outside the growing suison making the area unsuited,
without irrigation, to most cultivated crepe. The area tras produc
ing winter wheat and range forage prior to the development of irri'gation,
t of the land under study was already broken prior to
the irrigation development.
Ladras, the county seat, (l90 population 1, 20) is centrally
located on the project. The area south of Madras was first provided
with irrigation water in 19lj6 or 19I7. This study is lizited to the
two areas north of Madras which received their first irrigation
tsr in 1968 and l9L9. Agency Plains, lying north and northwest of
Madras, covers about hO,00o acres (23,000 irrigable) and is a
nearly1evel to gentlysloping plateau surrounded by an secarpsnt.
Most of the irrigated land has a elope of las than 3 percent.
The Mud Springs area covers just over 20,000 acres (6,3oo
irrigable). It lies to the east of the Plains *nd about 200 feet
law it in e1evtion. This area varies from level to strongly
op
breaking into rough topography along the boundaries of the
pro jec
The irrigated land has elopes ranging up to 6 percent or
more.
ontrasting nature of these two adjacent areas which
inspired this stu
METHOT) OF STUDY
aimed at cataloging farm itwcutment in its
none sep.ota and as to its 'various sources. In addition it wan
necessary to get crop acreagee, ratee of production, and gross
income.
Wo attempt was made to get costs of production or net farm
While such informatIon would have been useful it would have
innensely complicated the work of collection and analysis of the
data
As e'very researcher knows, tin. *4 cost are factors limiting
the quantity of data which can be collected and used. Efficiency in
b requires value to be balanced with cost. In this study, a
greater number of farms was considered to be of mere v*luø than
greater deta.]. per farm. Since only 63 farm records were obtained
for analysis this choice may be appreciated.
Further justification for omitting oost of production, tar the
resent, may be found in the following ststeTaents
Peterson, of th*
to College of iashtngton (, p. 147.18) recognized that "capital
per farm is closely related to income per farm and income p.r person."
Datm from the national census and from farm surveys were offered to
Substantiate this claim.
yment schedules for recent Buresu of Reclamation projects
are based on
erage gross income per irrigated acre (1, p. 314).
Production costs and family living costs are kept to
a minimum
during the period of farm davelopment. Usually all surplus ineon.
is invested in the tarn. The operator' a increasing equity in farm
investment, throughout th. period, will show his economic progress.
Great efficiency in farm production is not to be expected until farm
investment is nearly complete. Relative efficiencies of different
farm organisationa may be seem in the cospsrison of gross incomes
irrigated acre and per dollar of investment. The extent to
stiioh investment is devoted to the farm dwelling end family automo
bUs wtU indicate relative levels of living, over tte or betceen
farss
These indicators promise to be sufficiently accurate to permi
comparison of the various factors affecting farm organisstion and
land us.
They will serve to compare sSonmic progress under
different amounts and 41 fferent organisations of farm resources,
They wJ.0 also be used in an attempt to show the presence or absence,
on this project, of a relationship between economic productivity and
the various phystoal land classifications.
Sample Selection
'At first the consideration in sample selection was to get farms
fIrst year of irrigation. This limited the sample, for
1 purposes, to the area north of Wadxas. Water be
available in Mud Springs May, l9149 arid on Agency Riains after mid'
suar 191a8. Few farmers on the Plains raised an irrigated
p
in 19b.8; a considerable number irrigated oas fall seeding that
year while a slightly amaller proportion irrigated no land in
19148.
It was decided not to limit th. sample on the Plains to the latter
group since it was felt this would bi*e the sample towards the farms
with fewer resources or with les efficient operators, In relieving
tht bias another was injected since all farms did riot ha
comparable period of development.
The second consideration in ampl. selection 'was to get a work-
able group of farms representing the two irrigability land classes
and the several land capability classes and soil types. It was also
desirable to have these land classes represented In suitable blocks
to permit comparison, Due to the limited area of each, the eurey
included the greater part of the irrigability class 2 land on the
Pl*ins aiid most of capability class I lands In ud Springs.
An
attempt was made to have a fair range of farm sises and to hA-re farms
with varying amounts of nonirrigable land represented.
the two sets of land classification maps and the
Bureau ownership map and water delivery records were sufficient for
selection of the sample. La a final check the county- agent was asked
view the lists to guard against too heavy a weighting of atypi.-
cal operators. He reported that, to his knowledge, the list
contained a fair representation of operators' starting capital,
further check on this was made as th records were taken.
Initial contact was made by a letter from the county agent to
rmer on the sampl. list, explaining what was desired of him
oducing the two enumerators. This method was found to be
and excellent cooperation was received. Only two farmers
to give information. Three operators could not be reached
and crop the share and
expenses.
t operate together tenant
and
landlord th, which in those are farms Share farms, large as fied
classi'- were irrigated acres 16o over with Farm. 1. Table in shown
is location
crtd
tenure by farms
o
distribution
The
brackets. in figures
their anree, irrigated
2
(3) 6
3
3
10
160 over Farms
6
(3)
(3)
8
Largs*
Ptne
Rented
12
Part-.tj
Plains gency
Springs
Mud
1 DCHUTES UWIT NORTR
LOC&TION AND TENURE BY SAMPLE IN FALULS OF NUMBER
l90. in
1ze
3.. Table
comparable
a have to found were farms several s report present the in included
is It (ti). report preliminary the in out came which 1919, for
the in included not was eis its of beaiuse farm, One
ana&ys
unrepresentative. be to considered were
they because taken was record the after dropp.d were farms Three
harvest. their ing
county the
l.ft
had they bec&use
10
Is the sample rpreeentative
is did not include the southern half of the pro
ject where farms are aefler and development has bean going on since
l9L6, it is not representative or the whole of the North Unit.
sample was chosen to represent certain conditions and
The
y not nec-
ceessrfly be a fair representation of the northern half of the North
Unit.
as to
It is believsd, however, that the sample is not too different
se, investment and tenure, from the area from which it
was taken. Furthermore, it Xe felt that many of the principles
which govern the organization of farms and the developnont and use
of the land in this project w&U also be effective on other new
irrigation projects which may be settled in the Pacific Northwest
in the near future.
USE
Land Cl*sification
It will be generally recognised that th. nature of the land
h*s a major influence on its use. Iow widely land must differ
in order to bring about d.iffersnt uses is not so generally
Within the Willanetts V*lley differences of soils and topography
on individual farms are quite suffioint to bring out differences
in land use under proper management.
Peterson (, p. 6) states
that only when the soil and tQpogr*phy combinations change drasti-
cafly., ,do sufficient changes in intensity per acre and acres per
farm occur to result in equivalent incomes per fsri tn neighboring
areas that have similar marketing and climatic fssture., , tJ*u
however, within the same type of farming area . . .only enough change
occurs in land us so that faz,ere on the less productive land
operat. about as many total acres per farm as their neighbors on the
more productive land. Inhibiting factors like rolling topog
p.
or shallow, poorly drain.d soil usually handicap the 1arm oprstcr
in the area of low productivity to such an extent that they prevent
him
crc. acres ;r man as his neighbor,
who has mors level topography and deeper, better drained voile,"
Land under irr'i.gation in the area studied is classified into
three major soil series and two major textures. There are two minor
textures also represented, Three major land use capability classes
and two irrigability caeses have been designated. None of these
may be considered to indicate drastic changes.
general
type of tanning may be expcted to occur over the a
Tb. soil survey (6, p. 12-23) rnarka actual differences in Boils
end topography. Tab1 2 indIcate, the d1strbution of soils among
), Three soil series are important
to the area under studyJLadras, Agency, snd Netoltue.
the sample farms in 1919
Ts.bla 2,
(1*.
p.
DISTRIBUTION OP 50118 OCCURRING ON/SAJfó FAR)
N0T(PR UNIT DCRUTII 191*9
Matolius
9
Madrap
70
Agency
12
Era
33
76
14
16
14
monta
narable
191*9 total
2
23].
6
8,333
100
190 net inareau.
0
08
Madras and the related Agency series are composed of a bosslike volcanic ash of moderate depth on oonglomeratio lava mud or
basalt.
wThese developed under grse and sagebrush cover with an
average rainfall of between 8 and 10 inches. They show
some accumulation of Liner materl*ls in the upper subsoil,"
Madras "soil, to a depth of 8 to 10 inches is a brownish
gray, friabl, sandy loam containing some pumice. It is
underlain by olive brown compact silty prismatic clay
loam 'with colloidal etaininge and soil aggregates. This
grades into yellowish gray, highly calcareous clay loam
or clay with lime coated fragments of rhyolite anc basalt."
"At an average depth of about 21i thckE e the eubeoil rests
rn gray conglomeratic.]ike cali abs hardp*n of variable
hicknese which grades into samicemented basalt fragments,
then into ba*alt rock. Th topography is nearly level to
moderately sloping. Internal drainage is impeded by the
hardp*n" (6, p. IS).
The Agency series di! f.rs from th. Madras In having a heavier.
textured subsoil and no hardpan, t)nis better internal drainage.
(One or two farmers mentioned the appearance of some drainage prob
lem on the Plains). i1t and sandy loam were the common textures
found for the two series. The lighter texture combined with earns
slope permitted earlier field work in th. spring of l91 (one
reported that he had been leveling right through the winter).
Metolius soil is of alluvia], origin and is found along drainage
ways in the Mud Springs area,
Practically none of it exists on the
Elaine. Metolius sandy loam (the only texture mapped) is described
as a "light brown light textured subsoil on permeable aatril
(drainage fair)" (6, p. 16). Several farms on this soil 'were troubled with flooding in the spring of 19b9 and 19S0. Sinc, that time the
drainag, way has been deepened and straightened and the trouble should
be eliminated. Almost all Metolius soil (and only Mstolius soil) is
ippd as being in land capability class I with no major restrictions
on its use. It is possible, however, that dr
sues
some trouble.
h of
Powers (6,
these soils as follows
foot
)Letoliug sandy loam
Madras sandy loam
Agency loam
1.9 inches
1.6 inches
1.5 inches
foot
1.6 inches
3.9 inches
Third foot
1.7 inches
The infiltration rate for Madras sin
in about an hour and forty ainntern. Compared to the
texture, loam is listed as having a slightly greater
limit, and a longr length of run. It can take slightly more
w*ter per application and thus requires less frequent irrigation.
corrugation method of irrigation, which Ii in general use,
requires however, a considerably slower rate of application on the
loam then on th sandy loam coil. These comparisons are according
to approximate" irrigation practices and methods given bi Powers
(6, p. h6).
is too early to draw any conclusione regarding th, influence
aoila on land use but it is evident that come differences wiU
show u
in time.
land Capabiltt, Classification
The Soil Conservation Service (6, p. 232) has est up eight
land capability classes "based on physical characteristic, of the
landecu, slope, erosion.. .In this classification, irrigation is
16
assumed feaib].,... ,Claseiftc*tion
not based on land
productivity.
"Class It Very good land with little or no limitation
in Use. It is nearly level, deep and without appreciable
erosion, Some of it may need ,nditioning treatment, such
as clearing, leveling, or minor drainage improvement,
"Class Iii Good land with minor phyeical limitations,
such as gentle slopes or slight erosion. Choice in use.
is reduced or special practices are needed, such as careful
water management, contour operations, cover c1'oppinP, or
longer rotations.
s,class III: Moderately good land 'with major physical
limitations, such as relatively steep slopes, shallow soils
or severe eroRiob. Choice in use is further reduced and
more protective measures are required, such as terracing,
strip cropping, and very careful water management.
"Class IV: Fairly good land that is beet suited to
pasture and hey but may be used occasionally for a culti.vated crop.-'.'in 1 to 6 years. Has major limitations such
as very sandy soils or unfavorable climatic conditions,
When plowed, erosion revention measures must be used
carefully."
The four remaining classoa of land are not suitable for oulti.vation and will not be described hers. Since water supply was
limited, water rights were given only to the better lands which
includes mainly c&pability classes I and IX and some Ill.
Table 3 indicates the relative frequency of these three classes
he irrigable acreage of the sample farms (b, p. 10), and Table 1
shows their distribution in the entire study area (6, p 28).
Classes I, II, and III ar, important in the Springs; class II
is important on the Plains.
The differences exhibited in these two tables between the
sample farms and tb whole area are due partly to ehoics.-d.liberate
-
Table 3.
RENTAGE OF
62 SLMP
Capability class
GABLE LAND BY IAN!) CAPABILITY CLASS
R
NOIHUIITBcHUT
114
All farns Mad Springs
(62 faras) (20 farms)
07 ?lai
(142 t
Percent
trace
140
33
6
99
27
Tot*l
Table
14.
00
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION 07 IAN!) CAPABILITY CIASS
III IN THE SAMPLE AREA NORTH UNIT DCHUT
Capability class
Both areas
acres
0
Mud Springs
bacree
Percent
Percent
Percent
7
0
3.
63
22
83
III
Total
I
I,
16
100
(6, table 5, p. 28).
selection of class I 1andssnd partly to the fact that Table 3 3i.sl*
only the irrigable land
Table l lists all class I, II, and
III land. Some capability class III land was not considered
irrigable under the Bureau' a olasification.
Bureau of Reclamation Irrigability Classification
tton was madi prior to project construction an
was revised after construction. In addition to separating the
irrigable frou the nonirrigable land, it sets up different grades
of iz'rigable land. On this project only two classes of land were
designated 'irrigable .1 The definition of the irrigability classes
fol].owsi
Class I
The best land in the project, nearly levl
(o.
14.0 percent slopi), moderately deep
(214 inches or over).
The same as class 1 land except that it may
have up to a 6 percent elope.
Class 3
Shallower (20 - 214 inches), steeper slope
(up to 10 percent), while it i generally
considered irrigsb].e, on this project no
water is guaranted for class 3 land.
Class 6 - Nonarable, shallow, rocky, steep.
Classes 1 and 2 nonirrigable are the seas a. 1 and 2
irrigabl. ezospt that they are too high for
irrigation by gravity metheds.
rigability classes are the bases for *raisal values for
the purchase of the land and for repa7ment of project construction
charges, 4ppratsal prices, based on dry l*nd values on this
proj.ct, were as followsi
struction charges have been assess
1
should be n
pr
, on
land re the same In all
cept
Is
set, class I and class 2
ope and moothnees.
TION ON 63 8AMPL ?&R, II
DO1UTE5 lI
Sprin
ia farmi
63 firma
2169 srss
8do acres
871 acreS
Percent of farm
Irrigable
83
Glass 1
66
lii
72
214
ii o4 Reclamation Irrigability Classification
s, October, 191.i9.
ition of land on th sample farms
according to the Bureau' a irrigability classification. Class 2
land is of more frequent occurrence in the Sprin
area th&n on tbe
Plains, 1atnining only the 31 omnsr-operated farms, the difference
2
Igability class 2 land per farm between Mud Spr
Acre
Plaths in 19O was as follows i
enoy Plains
Mud Springs
2( farn)
(11 farms
irrigable acres per farm
7 acres
Class 2 acres per farm
20 sores
Class 2 as percent of irrigable 27 percent
102 acres
Ths fact that owner-operated farms in the Sprin
13 acres
12 percent
'were on the
27 acres smal]ar than on the Plains and had more class 2
land, led to thø expectation that farms 'with c2ae.a 2 land would be
a11er then fsrma with wholly e3au 3. lands. This was trite of the
9 farms having 70 to 100 percent class 2 land. They averaged 100
irrigable acres compared to lllj for the entire 63 farms.
However,
only I of these 9 farms were in Mud Springs. Th* 1 farms with
percent or more class 2 land, or the 22 farms with 2 percent or
more class 2 land, when compared to the reixzing farms are the
same average use, 110 irrigated sores1 (Table 7 shows farm sisee
1,
(uitting, in this average only, farm no. 8 which has 2? percent
claus 2 land and l02 irrigated acres and seriously weighted any
average in which it was included.
land Deve1osent
If there is price competition in the purchase of land we
expect a purchaser to consider not only th. productivity of the land
but also the comparative cost of developing it and of operating it
after it is developed, Reclamation laws and the Bureau's contract
with the irrigation district sought to curtail price competition and
speculation in project lands, Maximum prices were set on land cla*ees
according to their dry land value and penalties were inoiudsd to
prevent higher prices being paid, Ths actual purchaser, however, )*s
ot always agreed exactly with these values nor with the relative
difference in value between various land classes,
The owners of class 2 lands apparently regarded thea nor. highly
those who set the appraised prices. These prices were U
nt less for farms on class 2 land than for farms en dais 1
Purchasers paid practically the same price on each for farms
Ing 109 irrigable acrsss
praised price
36 farms on class 1 land
15 fares on class 2 land
difference
$2,690
2,39
$
Price pa:
$3,20S
3,180
295
25
land on Agency Plains was considered to be more desirab
land in Mud Springs. The new owners bought it two years before they
began to fare it, and it was bought, on the average, a year and a
half earlier than the land in Mud Springs. A comparison of the
length of ties which land owners on Agency P1ais and in Mud 3pringe
hays owned and operated their lend up to January 1, l9l is as
follows:
16 Owners
Mud Springs
32 Owners
Agency Plains
10 monthi
28 months
Owned
Operated
8 months
3 months
Difference
Appraised prices for land on
I
quite eimi1r, however, purchasers paid about *6 more pe
acre for land on the Plain
Appraised pric. Prics:
20 Owners, Agency Plains
U Owners, Mud Springs
$2
$$ per acre
per acre
$35 per acre
per acre
Difference
$ 0 per acre
$6 per acre
Owner operators on ths Plains had; net worth at start of 60
percent greater than owner operators in Mud Springs. Apparently
thoø who could afford it bought lend on Agency R1a.ins.
caste
Only about 60 psrosnt of the leveling work was hired. Costa
ranged from *7 per' hour for a small "cat" on a scraper to $114 per
hour for a "cat" and l2'-1 yard carryall. It was difficult to get
accurate costs on land leveling done by the operators themselves;
a wide variety of tractors and dirt moving equipment were used and
many operators had only a general idea of how much time they had
spent at this job. Unless more specific information was available
this work was valued at $3J0 an hour and a hO-hour week was
23
asauiied. This was taicen to ixxlw1e operating costs at
labor
at $1 and depreciation at i3. per hour of operation.
A conparison of leveling costs by land class is shown in Table
Contraxr to expectations1 farms with class 1 land have had higher
ng costs than those on dais 2 land. Thiø could be due to
able
IVELING COSTS }T1R ItRIGATiD ACRE BY iBFtIOA}3ILITY ClASSES
NOTH UNIr
63 FA?JI
scnTjrrs l9O
Percent class 2
Range
i6lOO
Levelin cost,
dollars er acre
No. of farms
Average
red
Own rork
Total
$9
69
26
12
17
28
0
36
8
27
several possible reasons. (a) Class 1 lands :wy need more leveling
in order to make theri really levol thilc class 2 lands are irrigated
the contour and thus require less leveling, (b) It m
1. In an earlier study on the southern half of
projects
Van Mi*le (13, p. 22), Lowid leveling costs to be higher on the
poorer land. Leveling costs per irrigated acres by class of 1*4
were given as follows a
Class I-fl0.8, Class II-.$13, Class III42l.18 and averaged
l6.b2. This included land clearing operations which, however,
were slight. Another 2,2O was spent on the "irrigation systn"
including "ditching, pipe, fluuee, check boxes and other irrigatlon structures" brin
the total land developnént cost found
in the earlier study to 16,62 per irrigated acre.
$220
$156
27
250
181
28
2i5
161
22
170
23
2 Class
Total of rcent
11J4
136
109
22 $
acre irrigated per Dollars
incoae
ment
p
thvest.
Total
C-ross
109
0
75
far* per Acres
15
farms Al].
2 and
Claes
2 Class
Unit
c1&s
Leveling
Irrigated
Irrigable
2 Class
Faznis
Irrigability
l0
DLCHUT1 UNIT }ORTH
CL&SSF IEIUGABILITY 131
COST8 LEVELING AND INCOME, INVESTM}NT, IZE,
7. Table
significantly cheaper for an operator to do his own leveling than
for him to hire it done.
(c) Hired leveling may be significantly
better than the work that the operator doea for himself.
(d) Per-
haps costs which we have assigned to the operator' a own work are
too ice (they would have to be doubled, however, before total costs
would be equal in the two groups).
(.) Possibly the group of 15
farms is not large enough to truly represent costs on class 2 lands.
The two groups of farms average just about the same development
period,
class 1, 29 monthsj class 2, 28 months.
Table 7 compares
the groups as to size, investment, and income both in acres and as
a percent of the total size, investment, and income on all farms.
There is a greater percentage variation in leveling costs than in
any of the other measures compared0
Income per dollar of invest-
ment in the two groups is comparable at 71 cents and 72 cents.
(An interesting difference between class 1 land and cl*s 2 land is
that 67 percent of class 2 land is owner-operated while only 56
percent of class I land is owner-operated).
It is blieved that, while the amount of the difference in
leveling costs may not be exact, the direction of the difference ii
reasonably certain at this time.
Aa these farms become completely
developed, however, this diffrsnce in total leveling colts
y
change.
In comparing leveling costs beb
rr-operatore on the
Plains and in Mud Springs neither the amount nor direction of the
unit. acr, 95 a on $2250 or acre irrigable per $25 averaged
farms sampl. the on land for prices Appraised refinancing.
and purchase land for necessary sa $2250 estimated .TLA,
acre per
what approximately
7
is (which
consider were they
labo
own
farmers'
the for allowance no includes This prices. l919 at unit farm famtly
typical a for $3510 require will irrigation and treainent land
acre per impr.
Own HirIU
Total
acre per coat Iaeling
Aliland
farms
of
No.
1950 DCHUTE5 UNIT NORTH
PIAI) AGENCY AZi) SPRIUC Mtll) MS
l9O I1IGATFJ) ACRE PER
O1ER-0PER&T!D 31
work. own a operator'
th. to attributed values the
upon
extent certain & to depends however, differences, the of anunt the
as well as direction The charged. was depreciation when Springs ud
in higher slightly were coats leveling thst shows 8 T&ble areas.
both in acre per $30 was irproveinents land
acre per 22 at
$ operator'
Before
same
the were area each in
all of
cot
value the and
leveling work,
own
the of coat the into calculated were charges depreciation
certainty. reasonable with ascertained
be could difference
26
favorably with the 3L per acre for all land iw&pro'
ts
Tibia 8
considering the changing price level and the fact
.ts are not, as yet, complete
Irrigation of 'Nontrx'igable' Lands
Twenty-one finns irrigated * total
o acres more thin their
rights specified in l90; another 21 fauna
:ated 260 acres
I.e. than their water right; the ree*ining 21 finns irrigat.d within
or We of their full irrigabi, acreage.
This difference bet*sen irrigated acres and irrigable acres is
closely associated with class 2 land. On the whole, farmers with
class 2 land irrigated 10 acres more than their irrigable acreage
while those with only class 1 lands irrigated 122 acres less than
irrigable acreage. Some of the farmers with class 2 lands, of
uris, irrigated less than their irrigable acreage and some of those
with no class 2 land irrigatd mere thin their irrigable acreage.
It
2
75
The 12 a
nbered that the 12 farms averaging 36 acres of
( as Table 7) were not comparable with the farms aver-
of class 2 nor with those having only class I. land.
larger fauna. They irrigated o
average, seven
for which thy held no water right. Their income per
1 but their in
compared to 70 cents
per doUar of investment we low (66 cents
all C srms
irrigating a total of $ a
Based on l919 calculations, about 250 acres on the 63 farms
class I or 2 land which the bureau of ec1smation considered
to be too high for gravity irrigation metiods, and which were given
no water right. This "nonirrigable" land occurred on only 2]. of the
63 sample farms and ua, on the average, nearly 12 acres per term.
Quite frequently it was in hummocks which could be leveled and
spread over low spots, thus permitting irrigation. (One farmer
irrigated 25 acres of clase 1 and 2 nonirrigable land with a
sprinkler system and without major leveling).
Class 3 land on the project was usually irrigable by gravity
due to the limitation of the water supply it wee not
given a water right. Ths eight operators in th. study with c]ass 3
land had, on the average, 28 acres of it per farm.
lass 1, 2, and
3 nonirrigable lands, however, accounted for only slightly more
f th. extra acres irrigated by the farmers on class 2
i's 110 acres of thIs hatter 1nonirrlgabl&' land
ted while 95 crea of class 6 lands wsr also irrigated.
vii bi remembered that el*aa 6 lands were described as
It
nonarable,
hallow, rocky and steep (see page 18).
Irrigating extra acres was more important on farms with over
irrigable acres than on farms with lees than that arnmt. There
were two operators, however, with an average of 38 irrigabls acres,
rho irrigated 6J acres saab in 1950. Their water rights were increasto 55 acres in 1951 which was still nine acres less than the
0. &noth.r operator pith 77 irrigabi. acres was
irriga d in
rigating 130 acres and was trying to get his water right increased.
like37 that the operators of small farms, especially,
will seek to increase their irrigable acreage by irrl.gat
irrigableN land. Nany farrs will, at relatively great expense,
improve small areas of nonirrigable land that complicates their
ield work.
Water Supp]
, of course, is a factor in water uee
Tater holding
capacity, elope, permeability and texture are important variables
in irrigation practices. Water is undoubtedly a factor in land use
between irrigated end dry land farms. Even on irrigated farms, water
is an important variable factor, depending upon its availability,
quality, and cost.
Water Delivery
later d.liver on the North Unit is on an order basis,
Th
Dsschutes River is the source of water. Storage is in Wiokiup
Reservoir 16 miles southsast of Bend. Diversion is made Into the
North Unit )In 'nal just north of the Bend city limits The
rrigation District offic. and the boll Reclamation office are
ted at the sir base just north of Nadras and 16 miles north of
water,
little relatively
require Grains grown. crops of type the with
water' of 'duty or requirement ion Irriga
amount.
less use
of
ue
would otherwise who farmer a by minimum the
encourage would
this consideration
worth was
that than
to
up water
watr rpm.
on premium the If allotment. minimum his ueed ha he until r
eurp for eligible not was farmer A tranuctioi the in part his
for premium some demend cou3d therefore, seller, The another. to
farmer one from allowance water surplus of transfer the p.rmitted
for $2.O
two
us This
district The District. Irrigation the by sold limit he
acre. irrigabi. per sore-foot one to up acr-foot
* at that above available was water Surplus aore.feet,
project the on acre irrigable per cost water
was
ooneequencc. a as luffered crop
their
and water for wait to had operators several l9O, July, in spell
& not is This
order.
hot sudden a during but occurrence
con
their of priority the
it
on
rely
must users wat.z'
deliver, to canals
the of capacity the beyond order on is water When required. is
before days three or two user water the by ordered be must Water
Bureau. the of ice off Bend the with contact radio has turn in which
office local the with radio by contact In are riders Ditch
31.
legumes considerable and row crops only moderate applications of
waters Among other things, $ farmer must bl*nee the acreage of
these crops with the amount of water which he
ia
obtain.
The
weighted duty of water is computed by rniltiplying the depth of water
required for each crop during the season by the percentage of the
irrigated acreage in such a crop and adding the results,
POwers
(6, p. 15) offers as an examples
65 percent in slZalt!a x
36 inch duty
25 percent in grain z
12 inch duty
10 percent in row crops x 2I Inch duty
Weighted duty of water per irrigated acre
23.I inches
3.0 inchea
2.lj inches
- 28.8
nahi.
When water is in abundant supply and free, then, according to
elementary economic
thee
it is used to th. point where its margi.-
mel return is zero, When water is abundant and has
coat it will
theoretically be used to the point where its marginal return is
equal to its merginal cost, When the unit cost of water decreases
as the quantity used increases, lavish use is encouraged. When uni
cost increases as the quantity need increases, more careful use is
encouraged. This latter is the noswal situation for the project.
When the water supply Is limited, not by pric, but by decr'ee,
wa
mey not be used to its beet economic advantage.
All these theoretical suppositions have practical application
he water supply on the irrigation project.
Two or three farms byond the end of the project ar, using
eat waste water to irrigate non'.projeat lands at no coat for
delivery. U*ny farmers on the project also are able to use fsee
waste water.
32
the firs yea of irrigation, farmers were charged only
for the actual amount of water delivered, With only a portion of
their land irrigated this often meant less than the minimum 'rater
charge. The second year all farms were assessed the minimum water
charge. The charge for the second year was $2.50 per irrigabl acre
hether or not they used the water, This encouragod the use of
water up to the minimum since it cost no 'nore.
Th final supposition of a supply of water not liiit.d by price
but by decree has not yet occurred. In a dry year it is possible
that the total water supply would be i c rore than enough to supply
the 50,000 'irrigable' acres with 2 acre feet per irrigeble acre.
This is the riinimum amount which the darn was constructed to rrovide.
The number of sample fares using various rates of water in
19b9 and 1950 according to Bureau of Reclamation figures was as
foflowss
tcreu.feet per iz'rigabl. acre
0.1 - 1.0
Li - 2.0
2.1 - 3.0
34
el
5.0
1919
1950
1
21
27
7
0
8
38
15
1
59
63
t of water used has definit, economic Implica
some doubt, however, whether th Dursau' a figures on
official water use per irrigable acr, 'ill he sufficient to uncover
these implications. On many- fares, as we have seen, the irrigated
33
icr.age is not too olo8aly related to irrigable acreage. A further
qualification is that a significant number of
?Pator5 lave waste
available for irrigation in amounts unknown to us.
problem deserves further coneidsrstion.
Land Use
Practicafl aLl of the irrigated land on the study farms was
producing winter wheat prior to irrigation development. Several of
operators came to the area a year or two before irrigation was
due and carried on dry farming, meanwhile developing their farms fo
irrigation, They leased lands from other new owners who were not
yet ready to operate their farms.
These farmers were in a ?osition to raise an irrigated crop in
19146 when water first became available on the Plains, Gross in
from irrigated crops averaged $14, 2SO for he eight farmers who
irrigated crop in i9I8.
the land was sold with the provis
owner would retain possession until irrigation wat
the original
e available.
n water became availabla in the suer of 19148 the new owners
could not take over th. fern until after the crop of winter wheat bad
bean harvested. By then it was too late to get the land leveled and
crop raised. The main aim of these farmers then, was to get a crop
ladino, alfalfa or red olover established, Sixteen such operators
able to get some of their land irrigated .n 19148 but received
no irrigated crop
average of 1
Altogether 214 farmers on the Plains got an
percent of their irrigable land irrigated in 19148,
Eighteen of the Plains farmers took possession of their land too
late to get any of it leveled and irrigated in 19148. No water was
available for irrigation in the Mud Springs area until the spring of
19149 but all operators irrigated some land that yeai
35
Table 9.
IA1
US
B! LOCATION AN!) IRRIGABILIT! CMSSI?ICATION 63
FAJOH UNT D1CHt1T1, 19Q
Class
1
Class
2
Class
1&2
Agency
Number o' tarns
Plain.
llud
Springs
142
Percent class 2
69%
26%
(acree per' fa
Crops
Ladino
145
Rd cloyar
56
146
58
114
20
11
A]!alfa
18
20
15
Pesture
2
2
5
3
1
Fieldp.as
6
14
14
7
Potatoes
S
0
15
20
15
18
105
lU
I!t3
320
Grain
Total irrigated acres
58
6
Gross irrigated crop
income
Per farm
19,095 $17,330 *22,950 *21,130 $114,770
156$
160$
1145
6
lye percent of the. irrigable land on the study fazms was
in 19ti9 and about 96 percent in 1950. The actua
irrigated in 1950 was slightly more than the total irrigabis
creage
It will be remembered that about 3.5 percent of the land
irrigated in 1950 was classed wnonirrigableW by the Bureau.
Table 9 (p 35) shows land use in 1950 in the
o areas end also
according to the differert land classes. Table 10 (p. 37) compares
land use, crop income and approximate prices received in l99 and
Land use has been complicated by unusual prices and price
1950.
changes. It became apparent 'when the area was first developed in
19b6 that it was adapted to the production of clover seeds. Alaike,
ladino and red clover were all grown in the southern part of the
project
By the time the northern half of the project was developed
it was evident that a]aike could not compete with the other two
crops because of its lower price.
area
There is no a3aik. grown in the
studied. The price for £en].and red clover seed was good in
19I8 and l9I9 but fell to less than halt in 1950. Thus in the Mud
Springs area, which was developed only s1ight2y later than Agency
Plains, there is a larger proportion of ]adino and a mealier propor'
tion of red clover than on the Plains. The ladino seed price was
supported at $1.25 per pound in 1950. Gross income per acre of
2adino was 275 compared to $108 per acre for red clover on which
the support price was L3 cents p.r pound. Most cl the seed was sold
at a few cents above support price.
Table 10.
LARD USE ANI) GROSS CROP fl4003LE - 19149 ANT) 395()
6 F443 NORTH UNiT DCHUT
Crop acres
per farI!a
I149 i95O
Gross crop income
per farm
Gross crop Income
Approximat. price
received
per acre
19149
1950
19149
1950
50 $2,037
$13,782
$211
*275
1'149
1950
1.30
$ 1.27
Crops
tadino
10
$
Red clover
5
17
367
1,8142
78
108
3.00
0.145
Alfalfa
5
18
233
148
71
25.00
2o.00
Pasture
2
3
-
1,310
Field pas
14
5
219
1402
146
77
.05
Potatoes
3
14
1,202
1,090
332
269
1.50
1.00
Grain*
65
16
2,14145
835
38
51
1.95
2.00
Other
*
1
21.
1149
So
3149
Total irrigated
914
1314
*6,5214
19,h10
$ 70
$3.70
irrigable acres
110
1114
se than 0.5 acre
.0145
Weather conditions seriously interfered with the clover harvest
950.
SoRi
rain is nornal for the area in the fall but in 1950
s earlier and of greater duration than could reasonably have
e7pected, The harvest was not yet coirpleted 1i the area in
March, 1951.
came.
I3arvesting continued at reat expense after the mine
Many farmers invested in crop driers and combines that they
could not afford to own and yet could rot afford not to own under
the circumstances. Yield. of clover were only 1I*1.t as great after
the ..t spell began. Thus, gross crop income does not give
biolute evaluation of land use in that year nor is it a safe mdiastor of net farm income. Gross crop income per farm is, however,
fairly closely related to th. acreage of ladino per farm since
ladino seed contributed 70 percent of this income.
The effect of the wet fal.1 wee felt more keenly in the Mud
Springs area than on Agency Plains
lThile Mud Springs farms had 25
percent mere ].adino acreage they had bS percent less gross crop
income per farm (see Tible 9). Thie is due partly to the nal1ar
inv.etesnt per acre in sachineir and equipment on Mud Springs farms.
Harvest on the Plains was more
complete when the wet weather
started). However, the deeper eo
Mud Spring. which refused to
dry out and stop clover growth- were also a factor. This would
account for the equally poor harvest reported on the farms south of
Madrae which were located on .t1. similar to those in Mud Springs.
continued
the late
r and ids it
harvest the seed even when the weather iras fair.
These farms had been in op
on a year or two longer than those in
Mud Springs arid should have been better equipped for the emergency.
An early, deep frost, occurring before the potato harvest was
completed in 191&9, damaged * considerable portion of the potatoes In
the study area in that year. Many of the potatoes failed to mak.
grade and later brok. down in storage
In l90, of course, it was
th, pric, which was damaging. There were 2
acres of potatoes on
the sample farms in 19S0, about iS percent mor then in 19149. Gross
income on potatoes, in 1950, was only 80 percent of the 19I9 Income
while harvesting and marketing costs were higher. To dat, potatoes
have contrIbuted very little to farm dvslopment on the farms
studied. While the prospects for the coming year are uncertain,
potatoes appear to have a definite place in land use on the project.
Alfalfa, too, has been disappointing. Yields have not been
high and. some farmers plowed up their alfalfa in 1950. The 1950
was damaged by summer rains and ire of poor quality. Alfalfa bee
littl. chance of competing successfully with ladino clover under
present conditions. Its importance will increase as livestock
duction increases on the project. To d*ts, however, surplus potatoes
and clover chaff havø been abundant and have furnished mere of the
livestock feed in the area. Cracked grain from volunteer growth in
the clover has also been a good feed source.
Livestock on most farms has been limited to a cow and
chickens
The abundance of fe.deble wast.e and the current high
10
prices have been an Incentive for thos with sufficient capital for
livestock f.ding operations. 'ost operators, however, require all
of thir investment 'or squipnent and ioprevemsnte. There is also
* probl.m of water eupp]y for livestock during the winter.
There is on. grade A dairy and there are teo creamery prodac.ra
area being studied. Lack of buildings and poor market
deterents to daizying. In addition, higher incomes can be
realised from clover seed production. When th. project was first
conceived, dairying was expected to play an Important part in ite
success. It may yet do so. Indications so far are Inconclusive
dairy development will be naturallr slow consid.ring the amoun
investment required and the lack of maz*.ting facilities at
present,
ii
FARM ORGANX7ATION
organization refers to the manner
or factors of
in 'which farm
production are combined or organized by the farmer into
a producti'e unit. The settler on a new irrigation proeet gener.
fly has united capital resources1, He must organize his resources
to bring his farm into production as
to pay current living expenses
quickly as possible in order
and production costs.
To do this
he must acquire the use of additional resources through renting,
sharing, or
borrowing.
The problem of farm organization for the new
settler is one of the amount of total resources, the way
th.y are *it to use, and their ownership.
Amount of Resources
the farm records ar
sorted on die of income (Table U),
income is seen to be associated with investment, with irrigated
acreage and with the acreage of ladino per farm.
ship was shown when farms were groupd by
and by size of investment.
au.
A similar relation
in irrigated acres
The question arises,
important is
each of these to total incone, at this early stage of deeloent
Farmers Home Administration (9, p.3) .stimat.d that $2,000 was
necessary to develop a family sized farm on the North Unit. H&lf
of the operators of the farms studied began operations with a net
worth of less than $10,000.
Thtal lnveejaent
Tnccmie per
doflnr of tots]. investient varied widely between
individual farms
It appeared to be higher on fans with higher
incoiw (Table 12). ifowever, when farnw were placed in broad groups
according to the size of their investment (Table 13) inc.one per
dollar of total investment was consistent]y close to O.70 as the
foUoLng tabulation shows,
Averac total inveetcnt
per fann
per acre
$ 23
22,S00
Average
Incone per dollar
of inveatmnen
0.66
000
207
203
0.73
2?,00
2L2
$0.70
(In ccmiparing fanne on clasa I and class 2 laM the sane conBia
toncy was noticed. Income was O.72 and O,7l per dollar of
investment respective3y,
It would appear fran this that while total inccine is rather
closely related to total investanen
the relative amounts of capita].
used had little relationship to Its efficiency. Investment roduced
the same relative amount of gross income 'whether used in large or
small amounts. There is pezthaps a hint that it is more efficient
The 19 fai,s in this group had
percent of the tccbal investment
on all farms in the stixty and about the same proportion of gross
crop income.
Tsbl. 11.
COME COMPARED TO FARM SUIC, INV1ENT AND IADINO ACRZAGE
63 FAR1. NORTH UNIT DC1!UTF, 1950
Gross crop incom
Average
p014
Investeent per farm
Acres per farm
Number
of
Total
land and
Irrigated
farm
farms
$58,000
6
$60,000
$38,000
$7
$IO,OoO
35,000
7
140,000
22,000
139
20- $30,000
214,000
12
29,000
19,000
128
48
0- 20,000
15,000
17
23,000
13,000
99
37
0- 10,O00
5,000
21,000
12,000
Rang.
Over $bO,OOO
30-
*41
Four part-time and three first year
equipment
Table 32
Gross
GROSS CROP INCOME PER ACRE Art) INCOME PER DOIJAR OF ThVESTMENT COM?M(1)
NORTi UNIT PESCHU, 1y50
C
Wuntber
come
Average
of
Gross crop
thoome per
irrigated
per fara
farms
acre
Over $140,000
$58,000
6.
$227
$3o- $140,000
35,000
$20- $30,000
214,00
$10- $2o,ocO
15,000
$ 0- $10,000
5,000
o45,000
AU farms
per acre
Inccrne per dollar
of investnent
Total land and equipment
$4D .97
250
160
o.88
1.57
12
188
151
o.814
1.214
17
153
135
o.66
66
157
0,25
$1148
$0.73
$119
0.28
56*
Average*
Land and
equipment
investment
$ir
2,000
7
32
US
o.i5
$19,000
63
$170
$1147
$0.70
aras in second year of irrigation.
Tabi. 13.
cAPITAL R0UR
01
FA
ota
6-1& 000
berof farms
fa:
al irvestment
d and equipment investment
operator's equity, November, 19S0
net worth at start
others ahare
total loans
owed November, 1950,
1950 gross crop income
19149 gross crop im
the of de'velopmen
irrigeble a
IT DCHU
vestment per arm
l8 0 000
0'ir 30 000
20
$13,000
19
$22,500
All f
63
3.5,000
$149,000
2fl, 000
*27,500
16,500
$ 7,500
6,000
$13,000
8,Soo
$33,500
19,500
*17,500
11,000
1,500
$ 3,500
$ 6,50o
3,500
$ 6,500
8, Soc
$13,000
14,000
6, Son
$20,500
9,000
$13,000
6,500
$ 9,500
2,000
$16, Soc
14*000
$33,Sno
son
$19,500
6,500
207
135
285
163
8
113
$
a
total investment
land and equipment investment
net worth at start
1950 gross crop income
Income per dollar total investment
Income per dollar land and equipment investment
Percent of investment in land and eqiips
1.12
97
151
$
196
0,73
1.12
$
0.68
1.20
$ 0.70
57%
61%
65%
116
146
when used in medium amounts but at present this can be considered a.
no more tban suggestive,
Total gross income,
i related rather closeir to total
investment,
Land and
uzent Investment
vestment in land and equipment
an being clone to
th. actual productive investment per farm * e far an crop production
is concerned, This avoids th. problem of differing wkotmte invested
in homes, care, and livestock1 which are net so closely related to
producing crop income. Land end equipment investment averaged 61
percent of total investment, In comparing land and equipment mi
ment with income in Table 13 there appears to be a correlation
betwen investment in land and equipment per acre and income per
acre.
Total
investment
per farm
J49,000
Lind and
equipment
Investment
per acre
Income per
dollar of
land and
equipment
Income
investnt
per sex'.
*196
151
22,5oo
13 000
$163
135
129
$1.20
1.12
Average $27,500
$1147
$1.16
142
1145
p170
1. While livestock is an important source of Income on eertain farms
it is not important enough in the whole study to warrant individual treatment at present,
$0.73. reaches only investment equipment
and land of dollar per income while $137 at law still is acre
iricoii removed, are they When tenant. the under yeer first
small one and farms pert-time 2 contains group This
p.r
its tr farr
increasa. investment as increase
does
the in Efficiency
risee. acre per investment as decrease) even
(*od increase to
Efficiency acre. per income
appear not does capital of use
and acre per investment t
a quite be to seems there
acre. per
efficiency capital greater f
between relationship definite
aberration, one from Apart
moderate in invested
i. it when
a perhaps, again, is There
equipment
Income
investment
acre per
116
137
161
188
$218
1.22
o.68
$1.08
1.140
162
191
196
1281
$23
81
1.08
87
$1147
$1.16
l7O
i.bo
Average
$100 Under
1214
]J49
iy1
:i.
$100.-
$12.-
$)So-
$l7-
$200 Over
range
average
acre per investment
and land
of dollar
per Income
equipment and Land
investment.
of dollar per income and acre per investment between observed
be can correlation definite no acre per equipment and land in
investment their to according grouped are farms when r,
acre. per investment smaller thosswi' than capital this
had acre per equipment and land
use the in lency
investment higher
the that appear would
ttb
it this
in
From
17
148
d invested EL&,730 in
land and equipment. What income could it have produced if the aet
of relationships between investment per acre and income per cc
noted in the foregoing tabulation, held true under other conditions?
Income per
dollar of
investment
$1.08
.68
1.22
$218
188
77
89
$18,068
11,376
2o,110
1.08
161
137
116
81
!97
18o68
$1.16
$1147
13)4
$19,1400
1.140
1.140
Average
Land and equipa.nt 5iae of farm Gross crop
investment per acre
acres
income
1014
122
11414
23,1422
23,1422
For instance, at an income per dollar of investment of $1.16,
$16,730 invested at the rate of $1147 per acre on 1114 acres produced
a gross crop income o *19,1400. Thie wee the average for all farms.
At an income per dollar of investment of $1.14o, *16,73
st.ed at
the rate of $137 p.r acr, on 122 acres would suppoiedly produce a
gross crop income of 123,1422. It would. appear that the average
operator could have produced a larger gross income by spreading his
capital over more acres than he has dons, Thi. is an interesting and
entirely possible relationship. Our data, however, do not warrant
any definite conclusions being drawn from them.
It is likely that on some of the analler acresges, (below 60
acres) capital cannot bø used as efficiently as on larger acreage..
149
is even possible that on somerhit lax
acreagss (around 80
as) capital investment in some equipment I.e greater than the farm
can efficiently use. Most farms have * combine aM many- have two
tractors. Thse are considered to be necessities bit their capacity
is greater than can be efficiently used on a small acreage.
From the operator's point of view than, a larger acreage would
be advisable,
Thus far in this diecuagion we have been ignoring the fact that
the Bureau of Reclamation has invested about $200 of reimbursable
public funds per acre of irrigable land. After the first
of farm development the settler will become fully aware o:
extent of this investment whi he beins to repay it.
If we consider the Reclamation investment at 200 per acre
*bov
the operator'. investment the following relationship results.
Investment
per acre
come per dollar
of investment
Income
per acre
$23
$1418
388
361
337
316
281
Average
$3147
0.33
O7
0. 1
128
I6
192.
0.31
162
87
0.149
$170
Viewing the total social investment, capital efficiency is not
noticeably diminished as investment per acrS increases.
Land sffi-
ciency is greatly increased. By limiting the farm acreage, society
would appear to gain to the extent that the limitation increases
investment per con. Nevertheless, en individual farmer, at least
i
ue short run, gains by increasing his a oreage and preading
his investmerkt over a greater acreage up to a practical
ti.1t
depending upon available capital.
Again it must be emphasised that p&'t of the foregoing reasoning
rests upon supposition and furthermore, that the figures which are
given are merely the product of research on the first two years of
farm development.
The fact remains that certain farmers
have mad. unusually larg. incomes
with
large resources
ome or both of these years.
This is not only the result of the system oi land reclA1tion.
It is
also the result of an unusual adaptation of a crop to a mew area at
a critical time, both in the development of this projeot and of that
crop,
The results are partly, at least, fortuitous and may not be
expected to continue indefinitely nor to necessarily recur on
futur. reclamation projects.
ladino Acreage
ii. ladime clover accounted for 70 percent of gross crop
income in 1950 on the farms studied, me definite correlation could
be found between acreage of ladino and income. Ladino was grown
universally and the
proportion of ladino acreage to total irrigated
acreage was practically constant in most groupiflga of farms.
The poor
harvest helped to disrupt any poaible oo:
ion b rsdw
on the large acreages that took longez to haryest. The operator with
elatively small acreage often finished harvesting before the bad
r set in.
The acreage of 3adino, however, may be regarded as important
to th. size of farm income since income per acre of ladino was
ignificantly greater than that of other crops grown on the pro jeot
(Table 10).
Table iL ETBt&TEI) C&PITAL R!UI
USED ON NORTH UNIT DCHUT!
AND ACTUAL C&PITAL
PROJECT 1950
1950
actual
31 owner
19Li9
?.H.A.
1950
operated actual
ktiaat.d farms
63 farms
Land acquisition and do,.].ome
Land purchase and refinancing
Basic land tz.staent and irrigation
Pare dwelling
Other building. and finoss
Farmetead water
$ 2,250 $ 2,3003 $ 2,80O
3,500
3,510 2,800
5,000
5,000 5,000
1,850
1,700
Li3O00
1,200
Lie
350
$12, 20 $13,500
TOTAL
quipmsnt and livest
ry and .quipaent
Aitosobil. and/or truck
6,000
1,000
Home equipment
1,500
Livestock
900
1,Li0O
-.
1,60
-
25210 *2Li.100 $27050
Total required investment
$ 7,000 $11,550 tU,000
Nit worth at s
land a
10,500
1,5002
9,250 *11,900 *13,550
TOTAL
Loans
750
9,500
n and developmint
Equipmen
$ 6,087 $ 1,250 $ 3,300
Li,2?8
6,5o
Operating home and farm
2,600
6,oSo
3,150
6,700
$16,915 $12,800 $13,150
TOTAL LOANS
Farmers Home Administration, Credit needs in the Columbia River
drainage area 1950 through 1955 (9, p. 3).
Automobile on]y.
3.
Appraised price.
53
f
at some length in the previous eøction. It will be sufficient he
to point ant that the use of resources differs according to the
ire of those resources. Ths proportion of total inveetaent going
p production decreased as the amount of total investment
increased (Table 13).
?ot&l inyestment
per fari
000
22,500
1300O
Aver
$27,500
per acre
$28
207
f total invoatnent
in land and equipment
57%
65%
20)
$2I2
6:
Thie is natural. When his capital is limited, a farm operator
eseks to invest it in crop production where it will bring quii
returns. When he has an abundance of capital the operator will
invest it in buildings and livestock, which bring returns after a
greater length of time, and in a home, automobile or other
evidences of good living.
The disposition of fare capital in its various
meat mazy bt
compared in Tables lh and 35 for the 31 fuU-.time owner-v
operated farms and for sU the farms in the study. In Table 3J
these also may be compared with Partners Homs Administration estimates
of capital needs. It would appear from the latter comparison that
farm investment is nearly- complete in many respects. Many farmers
on the project today, however, are without adequate hones.
Investment in homes, other buildings and livestock may be expected to
increase considerably in coming years.
Operators ol' the farms studi.d averaged 6 percent greater net
Worth when starting than was expected in the Farmers Home Adininistra-
tion estimate. It seems that the farmer, are also expecting a higher
standard of living than the Farmers Home Administration estimate
provided. Investment in automobiles already te above the astima
whil, housing investment is squal to the estimated amount. Only
half the expect.d period of development has passed. Table 17, how-
ever, Ihows that many farmers ar, still below both the average and
the ssttmatd amount of tnveatient. It wiU be remembered that 19
farms bad over half the tot*l investment on the 63 study farms and
thus have * buoyant effect on the average.
Table 15.
INVTMENT PER ACRE AND PERC4T FOR ALL FARMS ANT) FOR
GYNER.'OPERLTZO FARMS NORTH UNIT DCHUTES 1950
Percent of
Investment
total tnestinent
per acre
S
8
10
2
31
30
13
II
53
18
21
16
18
7
7
3
b
Equipnent
91
101
Livestock
12
9
S
Automobile
15
16
6
$ 25
Buildings - house
Other buildinga
later
Total
$21i2
Operator's equity
$152
Irrigated acr.s
100
$181
63
9
6
nsre1dp of Resources
d as to the
re
tion in
n Tables 16, 17, and
these tables, but an atteapt is being made to bring out differert
relationships aocording to tenure, ownership, and operator' e
starting net worth.
Opertor' s Starting Net Worth
Farm investment averaged about $27,500 per farm on the study
farms. Operators owned about t0 percent of this amount when they
started farm development on the project. In December, 1950, after
about two and a half years of farm development, their equity was
63 percent of total farm investasent.
Examination of Table 13 would seen to indicate that net worth
was directly related to the increase in the operator' s equity in
farm investment.
Investment
er farm
Operators
Net worth Percentage increase
equity 195o1 at start2
Over $30,000 $33,500
in equity
13,000
$19,500
8,500
72%
53%
$27,000 $17,500
$11,000
59%
$18- 30,000
6- 18,000
7500
6000
Operators equity in 1950 wu the total farm inveitment lees th*
amount of debts outstanding and the amount of other' s equity In
land, equipment, and buildings. It does not include cash or
bink balance.
Net worth at start includes the value of land, equin nt, livestock, and cash aseets that the operator owned when he started
farm develonent less the wnouiit of his debts at the start.
M'D FARM 0P1'R&TO1
Number
CMEARTi) B! TENURE 63 FAB
N0ITh JNIT DEcCHUTF
1950
of farm
onthe on farm
0erator' a age
h at start
p11,000
$ 7,500
$11,500
$ 5,500
$
5,000
$25,500
Operators equity
$ 9,000
$17,000
$1J,SOO
$ 7,500
h1,00O
Total investment
$11,500
$2,0OO
$26,000
$18,500
$61,500
$27,500
Lend and equipment
$ 6,Soo
$15,500
$17,000
$]3,000
$36,500
$17,000
Total loans
4 3,500
*l3000
$16,500
$ 8,Soo
(wed November, 1950
$ 2,500
$ 7,000
$ 9,000
3,000
$22,000
$17,00ö
p income
$ 1,0
Table 17.
NET WOIflil AT START COMPA'i:, TO SIZE, IVTMEtT AXJ) ThCOME
NORTH UNIT DICHUT
1
Net worth at start
Average
per
farm
S
Per
Irrigable
Numoer
of
acre
farms
$200
14
Irrigable
acres
per fare
Total
investment
Operators
1950
1950
equity
Gross crop
income
1950
Oen.r-operatedfarms
Over $18,000 $25,500
*37,000
22, 500
*12- 818, 000
15,500
161
16,500
15,Soo
6- 812,000
9,500
1214
13,500
11,000
6,000
3,500
145
U,
1},000
$11,000
$127
88
$23,500
$16, noc
000
149
102
18,500
7,500
17,000
$
All farms
£11 owner.
operators
Renters
0wrer-rerter
5,5on
142
8
127
26,000
114,Sno
large & share 25,500
110
8
229
61,500
141,000
00
].7 500
All farms
811 C
827
Table 18.
FA
ThVT
E, AS PEfICENT OF TOTAL INVTME};T, BY TENURE G:aU
II UNIT 0 . CHUTPS 19O
Itenters
O.ner-rentere
AU fartus
Number of farms
Total investment
$23,00
Operator' s .quity
ed
AU loans as percent
Starting net worth
Increase in equity
28%
$18,00
$26,000
141%
%
17%
3%
146%
27,0O
63%
214
Those operators with
*tor investment also had a larger
net wwx-th at ths start and made greater gain, in their equtt
farm invsetnsnt, both in term. of percentage. and in terms of
dollari.
When owner-operators were grouped according to th.
net worth, however, the opposite affect was evident for all groups
except the one with the largest starting net worth (Table 17).
th at start
Average
Increase
in equity
Percentage equity
of total investment
Over $18,000 $2,o0
$12- 18,000 3$,Soo
$ 6.. 12,000 9,0O
0- $ 6,000 )Soo
$U,OO
Ii3O00
88%
71%
68%
Average
$ ,oOo
69%
$11,000
1,000
70O
These groups had comparabl. periods of developeent. It app
then, that the amount of his starting net worth did not nes.arily
d.termine a farmer's progress.
The fact that only fixed capital and no operating capital is
considered under operator' a equity may leave oms doubt as to the
ueefulneas of these figures. Confidence in the.. figures nay be
increased by the fact that farm size, total farm invs.ta.nt and
boi-row.d operating capital are quite comparable for own.r-operat.d
farms in th. three lower groups of starting net worth.
6].
Net worth
at start
Over $18,000
Irrigabi.
acres
p.r fare
Total
investment
jer farm
Operating capital
borrowed
per fare
$1i2, 000
5,000
$6- 12,000
127
96
77
8o
23,000
19, Sao
21.000
6, 00
00
ge
88
$23, Soo
$, 00
$12- 18,000
o-$ 6,000
There i.e a possible .zplsnation for the apparent anomaly of the
increase in operator' $ equity being greater where his starting net
worth was lees. Operators with little net worth at start mey have
had to rely more heavily upon their own labor in their farm invest..
ment (landleveling and building) and thus have earned their increase
in .quity. Operators with a greater starting capital were rob.b]y
more Inclined to hire work such as leveling and construction. This
would not increas, their equity in the farm business, but would
only transfer cash assets to fixed assets.
Table 16 shows that the period of farm development and the
increass in operator' equity were somewhat lees on rented fare. and
somewhat more on part-owned farms than on the average owneroperat.d
farm. Starting net worth, however, was low in both these tenure
groups.
Tenure and Tenancy
!iftysight percent of the land on the study farms was owner
operated. Forty-two percent wae partly in units which were wholly
r.ntd and partly in rented tracts that were operated in conjunction
with scm. owned land. Unite containing rented land were larger,
the average, than thoes which were wholly ewnar-oparated. This
could be xpected. Rented land must not only provide for the opera
tor, but also must make some return to the landlord. A furbher
reason is that an operator may not r.uelve water for more than 160
irrlgaJ3le acres in the ownership of one person or of a
fiity
including children under 18 year's old, (i3, esotion 30â, amsnded
An operator is permitted to lease 3and in sxeeaa of 160 irrigabis
acres provided 'that the terms and conditions of the Isase are rtie
factory and in keeping with the purpose of the Federal R*clamatlon
Laws, and that the operation under the lease would b. beneficial to
the lands' (13, section 30B, amended). Operators of units over
trrigab].e acres are required to have their cropping program approved
by the county agent and by a local board. This must be done each
year before the contract for water delivery may be signed.
Six op.r*tors of the sample farms irrigated over' 160 acres in
l90. One of these contained lees than 160 'irrigable' acres,
th. operator irrigated about 2 acres of nonirrigabi. land. A
number of these large operations were soma eort of partnership
arrangement.
Three of them were wholly rented and three were partly
owned and partly rented.
The large unite also had large investments and
At lust five of them were generefly found in the top grouping wbsn
farms were arranged en else, income, or investment. Large farms may
be compared to other farms in certain aspects in Table 16.
63
tel procedure, among the sample farms
iiake all improvements In th. land. No rent was due for
years. Thi.. would permit the operator to have at
least on. complete crop to pay for his leveling costs. Usually
little crop income was produced the first year. Rentel shares to
the owner in succeeding year. averaged one-third of the crop.
A
mimber of these leases contained purchase options.
A veriety of other rental contracts were also used which
ua amounts of th. landlord's investhent in improve-
sent. and in crop production, (*i the tao share farms the landlord
provided most of the investment and such of the operating expenses
and took tmothfrds of the crop, Thee. farms had large investmentS
and were not strictly comparable to any of th. major groups, least
of all, perhaps to the rented farms. They were often grouped with
large farms in the analysis which tended to sle dam the 3*rg
There is some i
on moat rented farms. Both renters and landlords are seeking an
acceptable share lease for crop and livsstoak enterprise..
There were four part-tims owrn.zop.rstora among the sampl. farms
On. operator had a full-time job oft the tarn.
T
others worked at
construction mtenever possible. The fourth tarni.r spent most of his
tine on another farm and only a fraction of it en hi. own pisee. Tb.
av.rg. else income and inveetaent for thee farms js l
seen in Table 16.
as nay be
evera]. of the sample farms have changed hands a
continuing the cooperation that their
began,
predecessors began.
One of th. owned farms changed hands ear])
early in l9l. In neither case was
operator, both ta
this due to failure of the first
production and had above average
improvements,
Two ranted farms have also chs.ngod hands,
leased by the oner of an 80 acre tract,
One was orig
He could no
developeent of both places and had to drop th. lease,
farm also changed hands due to Inadequacie
Due to poor topography and li-mi-ted capital it
original operator.
The second
original operator.
$ too large for the
The lease was taken up by two operators who
divided the farm. Those
three farmers began operations in 191 with
limited capital on farms that
income in l9O was small.
x'e largely undeveloped.
In several groupings in the analysie
thes. three first-year operators and the four
operator.
were placed in a separate group (see Tables U and I
Tenure is already çroviding some inter.
promises to be of some importance to
this stud
of the 'value of total investment per
Borrowed funds wez'e used as folloirs:
and buildings
2 percent
Uachinery and equipment
2 percent
Production end household expenses
50 percent
AU loans ($]3,i$o)
100 percent
of the coat of land ad buildings had been borrowed
0 percent of the total cost of equipment was borrowed.
Only half of total borrowings were still owing. in December, 19O,
ibsn the i9O farm records were taken. Probably less than this
amount was still owing after harvesting was completed.
The study of farm loans was complicated in 19O by the fact
thst, due to the delayed harvest, all farmers had not made their 19S0
payment. when the farm record was taken. Some of these delinquent
borrowers made payments later when their crops were har'cested.
Others were unable to pay. The Farmers Rome Aàdnistration was
permitted to make disaster loan. in the area ifter the fall, of 19O.
A discussion of the sources of farm investment on a ew irriga..
tion Project deserves aoxe attention than can be given at this time,
Van WInkle (13) has dealt with th. subject rather thoroughly in an
earlier study on the southern half of the North Unit, Deschutee
Project. The Bureau of Recl*mation is preparing (or has prepared)
report comparing this study with 'o similar studies, one in
Washington and one in Idiho. The report of the Farmers Roe. Adiini.
tration (9) referred to previously is also useful in comparing capital
needs on 'various new irrigation project. in th. Pacific Northwest.
Lnvsatiga
,ifl probably
are aai]abls.
is a5pSct of farm orgini
roductii aftr another year' a farm records
67
This tudy is an analysis of the first two years or farm develproject. The
pment by the operators or 63 farms on
investigation is to continua for another three yea
is mad, to compa:
n attempt
se of land and the farm progress made by
operators with waiying mounts of capital, on farm units of differsztt
izes and on differing lasses of land, by using only farm investment,
rop acreag
and gross income data, In order to economize on
research time and money, complete
of production figurew were not
obtained. Although it has certain limitations this method appears
to be satisfactory.
the efficiency of fixed capital can be corn-
pared by this
e may not be consistent with the amount
and efficiency of operating capital on the farms being compared.
Two areas of quite different topography are examined. A de
oription of the sample area and sample farms in terms of oil, land
capability classes, and irrigability classes is given. Irrigability
class 1 and 2 lands, which differ only in slope and smoothness, are
apared. Operators on class 1 lands were found to have spent 20
percent more per acre on leveling cot than operators situated on
class 2 lands. Operators paid practically th. same purchase price
on the two land classes. T*tal investaent and gross crop income were
found to be higher on the clan 1 lands. Apart from the tact that
potato.e were grown oniy on class 1 lands, no appreciable difference
in the type of farming was noticeable between the two land o
ii' l9SO.
and on Agency Plains, which is practically level, was con
to be more desirable th*n the more rolling land in Md Springs, in
that the purchasers bought it up first and paid a higher pric. for it.
Land in ud Springs was bought in slightly smaller unite (due to the
topography; lees of it is Lrrigabl.) by operators with less capital
than those on the Plains.
Farm development in Vud Spring. began a
few months later than on the Plains and probably for this reason
land use was slightly different.
By the time Mud Springs was being
developed, ladino clover seed production was shown to have a cnparative advantage over alfalfa hay and red clover seed production.
Relatively more ).adino and less of the other two crops was grown in
Iud Springs in l9O.
Livestock was of limited importance on th. project up to l9l,
due mainly to limit. on the availability of capital.
Few conclusions can be reached at present with regard to farm
organization.
Present indications may only be properly evaluated
after several more years of farm records are available.
Gross farm income depends upon farm size and farm
An adequate farm size in terms of irrigable acreage end capital
investment cannot be estimated at this time.
It appears that some
farm operators could have made more efficisnt use of their capt
they had had a larger acreage.
The average of the 63 farms ims
sorevhat larger in most respects than the average of the 31
operated farme,
wner-
The majority of farms were less than the average
else, investment and income. Nineteen farms had over ha]! of
Avóree of 63 f*rss
Number of farms with less than average
Size - 1114 irrigable acres
38
tnvestent ... 127,OO
142
Gross crop incczie - l9,bOO
37
the total income and instaent on the 63 sample farms,
A large starting net worth is useful but not .eential to frm
progress. Th. operator's own l&bor end initietl.v. in farm management
and developmant ar. important reecnlrees
Wise use of limited capital
ray make him a btter loan risk than profligate use of abundant cap-
ital. The new settler generally must acquir. th, use of more
resources than ha owns. Rsnting eith.r part or all of th. farm
unit is a recognised way of overcoming capital limitations.
It is
desirable for the tenant to attain sore security of tenure since he
generally makes considerable Investment, the earnings from which
may be realised only over a period of years. It is diffioult to
arrange a fair rental agreement on land of unknown potential.
lease should be flexible to permit changes whn income and cost
relationships bscoa. better known.
Certain of these aep.cte of l*nd use and farm organisation
which have been treated lightly her, will receive much more atton.
tion in remaining years of the study, Much of the effort expended
on the study to this date has been devoted to developing setegorias
and procedures. It is hoped that they will bear fruit over the
70
BIBLIOGRAPHY
,Oscar
trtor to
19b9. 1407p.
Annual report of the secretary of the
9I9. Washington, Govt. printing office,
Jots, Alexand.r, Rspay.nt experience on federal reclamation
projects. Journal of farm economic. 2?s1S3.167. 19h,
G. Stamm, The economic problems of
irrigatior development in need of ree*roh by agricultural
economists. Proceedings of the western farm economics
Lee, J. Karl, end C}
associstion, twenty-third annual meeting l903l0l-107.
Osborn, Howard A. Preliminary report on farm development
on a new irrigation project Jefferson County, Oregon.
Corvallis, Oregon, Department of agricultural economics,
Oregon agricultural experiment station, l$0, 18 p.
(mimeographed)
Peterson, Arthur I, Statistical description and ana]yeis of
Proceedings of
data by economic lend use class areas
the western farm economics association, nineteenth annue
meeting. 191i6zb7-60.
er*, I. L., William I. Hill and M. F. Sandos. Land cape-
bt1Ltie and conservation farming Desehutee area, central
Oregon. Corvallis, Agricultural experiment station,
Oregon state college.
veinber 19&7. 63p. (Special
bulletin in aoopsratian with .il conservation service).
Preeident a water r.ources policy coiesion. Water resources
law. Washington, Govt. printing office, l9O.
777p.
U.S. Department of agriculture. Irrigation agrianiture
the west. Washington, Govt. printing office, l918.
(Miscellaneous publication no. 670)
U.S. Department of agriculture, farmers home administration.
Credit needs in the Columbia river drainage area l9A)
through l9.
l919,
Washington
Farmers home administration,
18p, (mimeographed5
10. U.S. Department of interior, bureau of reclamation.
Dsschutee
federal reclamation project. Washington, Govt. printing
office, 191i8. Bp.
11.
Department of interior, uroau of reclamation, Dchut
project. Contract between the United States and the
Jefferson water coneervncy district for the construction
of the Wiciup reasrv'oir and the north unit of the Deechutes
project. Washington, Govt. printing office, 1938. 13p.
amendment and supplement l9L5.
8p.
U.S. Department of interior, bureau of reclamation. Federal
reclamation laws annotated. Washington, Govt printIng
office, 1913. 766p.
Winkle, Alfred Fugene. Capital used in the development
of newlr irrigated farms on the north unit, Desohutea
project, OregQn. Corvallis, M.S. thesis eubctitted to
Oregon state college, 19S0. 62p. (mimeographed)