Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />. <br />'. <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />~~ <br /> <br />OJJ832 <br /> <br />A - POPULATION <br /> <br />The population of the ute District, although indireotly <br />influenoed by the growth of Grand Junction and Mesa County, <br />does not follow the same pattern of growth. A study of census <br />records shows that during the period from 1920 to 1930 the rate <br />of growth in Grand Junction averaged slightly higher than the <br />rate of inorease for the entire County. During the following <br />decade the overall growth of the Oounty was almost 40% greater <br />than Grand Junction. From 1940 to 1950, including the World <br />War II years and recovery following the war, the rate was <br />approximately the same. From 1950 to 1960 the County rate was <br />higher than that of the City. (See Table A-IV - Population <br />Growth) <br /> <br />It is a well known fact that a substantial percentage of <br />the population of Mesa Oounty is located on farms, ranches and <br />towns serving these rural communities. It is also true that <br />farms are decreasing in numbers and increasing in size. How- <br />ever, the use of the period 1954 to 1959 to show the reduction <br />in number of farms, presents a highly distorted picture. <br />During this period, the criteria for defining a farm were <br />changed, resulting in the elimination of many small acreages <br />which had previously been counted as farm units. <br /> <br />In spite of the downward trend in, number of farm units, <br />the population of rural areas is increasing at a more rapid <br />rate than the city. This apparent contradiction raises the <br />following questions: <br /> <br />1. How can the Oounty maintain a more rapid growth than <br />the City when farm and ranch population is dropping <br />so rapidly? <br /> <br />2. What causes the City population to lag behind the <br />County in spite of substantial annexations, as well <br />as having the benefit of normal population expansion? <br /> <br />The obvious ans'wer is that suburban residential expansion <br />that lost farm and ranch families and losses through annexation <br />to Grand Junction are not only replaced, but exceeded to such <br />an extent that it carries the entire Oounty along at a greater <br />rate of increase than that shown by the City. Table A-IV shows <br />the distribution of population and growth by class. Rural farm <br />and rural non-farm residential growth is developed for the <br />period 1940 to 1960. <br /> <br />- 4 - <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />.f.: <br /> <br />~ <br />