WSP04510 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"...j M M CHAPTER V AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY '-~ Livestock With the additional feed produced by the project, the total number of livestock would be increased. Little change would be made in the numbers of beef cattle and sheep because of the limited public grazing privileges. Dairy cattle, however, would increase in number as the dairy industry would be stimulated by the fall pisturage provided by the project and by increased crop residues. The number of hogs would be increased to utilize the increased skim milk supply. Poultry flocks would remain about as at present. The number of horses would decrease with increased mechani- zation. Farm Settlement and Improv8llents Most of the land on Harvey Mesa and in Dry Elk Valley would be absorbed into presently operating units, bringing the units to an economic size. Fifteen new units averaging about 60 acres in size could be established on land under the Davie dit ch. More than half of the new land that would be developed under the proj- ect has been prepared for cultivation. The remainder, however, would have to be leveled and cleared of sagebrush at a cost of from $10.00 to $15~00 an acre. Existing irrigation ditches and laterals would have to be improved. Farm buildings need repairing or remodeling, and mny items of farm machin- 'ery must be replaced or improved. A few new farmsteads woUld have to be established on lands under Davie ditch and in Dry Elk Valley. A development period of 5 years after the first delivery of project water would be desirable before irrigators were assessed construction charges. This development period would give fanners time to ue.ke necessary improvements in irrigation distribution systems, to reorganize and estab- lish some fanns, to establish crop rotation practices, and to attain full crop production. , " l i i I . , . l \ I Development Period Irri~tion Repayment Analysis of Payment Capacity The capacity of farmers to PLy construction costs was detennined by the fann budget method, verified by the income-to-1and method. In the farm budget method payment capacity was estimated as the differ- ence between farmers' cost of living and net income. The capacity was deter- mined through the development and analysis of budgets of representative farm/!. Budgets were prepared for both with and without project conditions 39