OCR Text |
Show WATER FOR UTAH ... Low Water Supplies ... Low Employment .. . Low Income ... These scarcities of water supply have had their impact on the State's farm population and employment. While Utah's population has steadily increased, that portion living and employed on farms has decreased. The seriousness of this situation is evidenced in that while total population increased 30% -- from 453,000 in 1920 to 592,000 in 1945 - the number of persons living on farms decreased 28% during the same period - from 140,000 to 100,000. Consequently this agricultural base, combined with the increasing use of labor- saving agricultural machinery, resulted in decreasing opportunity for farm labor at least relative to increasing population. In 1920, there were some 43,000 gainfully employed in agriculture; these declined to under 29,000 in 1940, or almost one- third. However, since that time, there has been a numerical increase, so that of the present total State's labor force of 239,000, a little less than one- sixth or 34,000 are now employed in agriculture. More than 80% of this labor is found on irrigated farms, and it is on them- given the water supply to expand and produce more fully- that additional numbers could be employed. ( See Chart 4 - Number of Full- Time Workers Required by Farm Type For Various Periods - page 19.) In keeping with increasing income levels throughout the Nation, the cash income in Utah rose from a prewar level average total of $ 55,000,000 to between $ 120,000,000 to $ 150,- 000,000 during the past three years. However, while the average cash receipt per farm grew 278% from 1939 to 1946, the same increase for the eleven Western States was more than 341%. About 77% of the Utah cash farm income was derived from irrigated farms, 19% from range livestock and 4% from dry farms. [ See Chart 5 - Farm Income by Major Types of Farming - page 20.) In comparison with adjacent states, the average income per farm in Utah is low. The average value of products sold and used in Utah in 1929 was $ 2,434; in 1939, it was $ 1,754 and in 1944, $ 3,997. In comparison, the average for Wyoming farms was $ 4,125, $ 3,405 and $ 6,842 for the same three years. In Colorado, the average was $ 3,333, $ 2,232 and $ 5,671. ( See Chart 6 - Average Income per Farm - page 21.) In 1939 more than one- half, and in 1944 one- third of the Utah farms had a gross value of products of less than $ 1,000. In 1939 only 16.5% of the Utah farms sold or used more than $ 2,500 of farm products. Obviously, this amount was inadequate for an acceptable standard for family living. In terms of investment per farm in land and buildings, the Utah average of $ 9,947 was also considerably lower than that of neighboring states. The average investment in Wyoming was $ 17,746, while in Colorado it was $ 1 1,855. The primary reason for the small farm incomes of Utah ties directly to the limitations of water supply. The farms in Utah are small, partially a result of historic background reflecting water conditions. Of the 26,322 farms in Utah in 1945, the average acreage harvested per farm was under 50 acres. The irrigated farms averaged less than 40 acres of harvested crops. The enlargement of farm businesses could be accomplished by the addition of more acres and by more intensive use of both existing and new acres. This is an absolute necessity for the expansion of the State's agricultural economy. Only thus will there be opportunity for full- time, productive employment of the agricultural working force. [ 18] |