Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(", <br />. , <br /> <br />,,:- <br />~":,,':;:)- <br />, 't;~ <br />,QQ <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />-15- <br /> <br />in planting whieh might have taken place from influences other than water <br /> <br />-supply~-Hi)wever,- -i t wasfound-tliat the-major- changes -thaCtook-pl-ace Tn--th--e-- <br /> <br />acreage of various crops was due more to water supply than to any other factor. <br /> <br />The two sets of values representi ng "measure of crop value" were <br /> <br />plotted yeaT by year 8gainst water supply. Several combinations were worked <br /> <br />out, one taking the diversions from April to October as the water supply; <br /> <br />another taking the annual diversions; another taking the April to October <br /> <br />diversions plus the November to October precipitation; and another taking the <br /> <br />November to October diversions plus the November to October precipitation. <br /> <br />Two graphs resulting from the above processes U'e submitted herewith. <br /> <br />Plate No. 1 shows the "measure of crop values", based on actual acreage <br /> <br />of crops and average unit prices, plotted against the November to October <br /> <br />diversions plus the November to October precipitation. The protracted drought <br /> <br />since 1930 unduly affected the planting so that not only was the unit pro- <br /> <br />duct ion down during the years since 1930, but the acreages were less than <br /> <br />normal. <br /> <br />Attention is called to the relative position of the years 1929, 1930 <br /> <br />and 1931, which it is believed represent fairly the relationship between the <br /> <br />gross value of CJ'~)S in the two counties, and the water supply. The water <br /> <br />supply during the years 1929 and 1930 was fairly good. There was not much <br /> <br />change in acreage of the principal crops planted in those two years and in <br /> <br />1931. The water supply during 1931, based on the November to October diver- <br /> <br />sions plus the total November to October precipitation, was about 260,000 <br /> <br />acre-feet less than it was during the years 1929 and 1930. The gross value of <br /> <br />crops in 1931 was about $2,000,000 less than in 1930 and $1,600,000 less than <br /> <br />1929. The water supply during the year 1934 was even less than in 1931, being <br /> <br />aboll:!; 330,002- acr~-~eet lessth..an-.ltwa~_dul'ing 1929-, and.11b~u:t 3?5,09~___ <br /> <br />acre-feet less than in 1930. The gross value of crops in 1934, based on the <br />