| OCR Text |
Show In the Colorado River Basin most of the remain- ing available water supply will be required to meet supplemental requirements of lands having an in- adequate supply. Under reclamation law the acre- age limitation will be applied to lands receiving supplemental water from a Federal project. Throughout the years the tendency on operat- ing projects has been for some individuals to exceed the acreage limitation. According to the Bureau of Reclamation, it has seldom had sufficient funds and personnel to police adequately the enforce- ment of the limitation. However, during the last 4 or 5 years, a concerted effort has been made to bring about full compliance with the 160-acre limitation on Bureau projects. Initially, a sur- vey was made to determine the extent of excess land on Bureau projects receiving water in 1946 (table 9) . TABLE 9.-Summary of survey of land holdings larger tFian 160 irrigable acres per ownership on Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the Colorado River Basin receiving water in 1946 Source: Bureau of Reclamation. Since 1946 full compliance with the acreage lim- itation has been achieved on the Yuma Project and progress is being made on others. The basin contains existing and potential irriga- tion projects which have extremes in soil, climate, cropping, dfarming methods, marketing conditions, and other factors which influence the gross or net return to tlie farmer per acre irrigated. Investiga- tions of the potential projects indicate that in gen- eral the acreage of a family-size farm, as provided for under reclamation law, is adequate to support a family at a reasonable standard of living. In some mountain valleys, where the growing season is short and the land is used only for the production of hay and pasture, more than 160 acres may be required for a family unless a substantial acreage of range or other cropland also is included in the farm. However, for a husband and wife, permis- sible holding of irrigable land would be 320 acres, which is considered adequate in the light of pres- ent knowledge. Conversely, there are lands within the basin on which less than 160 acres are necessarily for a family farm. This is particularly true in the lower basin, where long growing seasons and high temperature greatly increase the productivity of the land. The lesser need for large acreage is illustrated by average land holdings on two projects. The average size of ownership for more than 19,000 owners on the Salt River Project is about 12 acres.11 On the Yuma Project the average is about 47 acres. The principle of acreage limitation on Indian lands in the basin has never been translated into a policy defining a specific acreage. In general, on Indian irrigation projects the size of individual or family holdings is limited to the minimum neces- sary for subsistence. On all Indian projects in the basin the original size of such holdings, as expressed in the allotments to individuals, is below even the acreage necessary for a subsistence livelihood, and is sufficient only for the production of supplemental food or livestock feed. Attempts have and are be- ing made to shift Indians from a crowded reserva- tion to one having better irrigation potentialities, but, in general, progress has been slow. Conclusions Application of acreage limitation and mainte- nance of family-size farms in further development of the Colorado Basin should be continued. That policy will aid in spreading the benefits resulting from Federal expenditures; it will prevent or dis- courage speculation in irrigable land; and it will contribute to the improvement of the economic and social stability of the country. However, great en- vironmental differences in the basin suggest strongly that maximum farm size should be adjusted to local conditions after detailed project study. 11 Does not include lands held in excess of 160-acre limitation. 394 Total irri- Known excess land gable project in violation of acre-area age limitation Project Num- Number of a,.™, ber of *„_„ Per-owner- Acres owner- Acres cent ships ships Fruit Growers Dam. 88 2,634 0 0 0 Grand Valley...... 1,950 37,156 0 0 0 Moon Lake....... 745 53,903 11 557 1.0 Pine River........ 525 43,117 11 1,357 3.1 Scofield____....... 459 18,951 1 148 .8 Uncompahgre 1,672 75,377 17 926 1.2 Salt River.........19, 782 246,134 134 30, 720 12. 5 Yuma............ 994 54,170 24 7,767 14.3 Gila......_....... 13 10,552 2 80 .8 |
