pkumissium: iimmcation » iiahoks 



15 



Oratif/fs. — Altli«>uj;h il is h«'li«'V»Ml I'hil.- I n'ii^oiinhly fixes tin- •rt'iiiTMl 

 inatrnitiult' of piM-missihlc irriL'iitioii wiitrr char'^'cs of llic jiviTajrc trrowcr 

 of oiaii;rfs ill the 'riilair citnis licit at about $:{.'! an acre, the outlook 



for tin' niaintonaiUT of tli«' rt'lativciy lii-rli avera^M- pri* f the past 



tiftt't'U years is not cncourafjinjr. 



Tliis is (luf to the iiuTcast'd conipft it ion from oran<r«'s an<l «rrap»'fniit 

 from Flori.la aiitl Texas at the time wlieii the 'Pulare eitrus helt navels 

 are liarvt'st»'<l. 



Drrifluitu^ Fruits. — The wiile atlaptaliility of Califoniia to the ^Towth 

 of (leeiduous fruits and the faet that a very laiy** numlier of the farmers 

 of the state desire to jrrow them, irives assuranee that, unless eonditions 

 ra«lieally ehanire in the future, the aerea«re in deciduous fruits will 

 constantly tend to approach what mii/ht he called the saturation point. 

 FurtlMM-niure. the eost-of-prodiiction data presented r«'late in the main 

 to oiilv one of the deciduous fruits and sut^ciei't information is not 

 available for other deciduous fruits to justify other than a conservative 

 irri<;afion water charu'e. Admittedly, the difTerence between the indi- 

 cHted excess of farm iiii'omc ovei- costs and the permissible chai-<re 

 su«.'jre'te<l is not larur*' enouirh to be sijrnificant, in vii'w of the larirc 

 number of items that enter into the cost of production and harvt'stiiiir 

 of de«-iduous fruits. Therefore the conclusions of the report are but a 

 conserv}itiv«' ajiplication of the results of the analysis presented. 



I'ndoubtedly. many of the hett«'r <rrowers of deciduous fruits will 

 be willing.' to incur an annual cost of il?!;') or $20 an acre, but these are 

 not believed to be sjife fit.Mire> for state jilannint.'. If. however, the 

 owners of j:ood deciduous fruit orchards are willing' to assume an 

 nbli^Nition to pay for irrigation water at the rati- of $10 per acre ])«'r 

 year, it is the conclusion of the report that the state, or other responsible 

 authorities, would be justified in accept in«r the contract. 



(intpfs. — As in the case of deciduous fruits, it seems probable that the 

 acreaire in trra|)es will constantly tend to exceed that which will 

 l»ermif a lar;re profit t(» thf '_'»i.\ .r- and a i-niisiTvat ivc |>eiiiiissible 

 irrijration cost is re<piire<i. 



Cotton. — This is an annual crop ^rrown |jir<.'ely on rented land and it 

 is bi'lieved that, in the lontr run. cotton t'rowinir will not be attractive 

 unles.M it pives prospects of substantial i»ic«»ine per acre in excess of the 

 necessary annual outlay. 



Alfalf'i — This is one of the most \* idi-ly jrrown crops in California and 

 IS li!:e|y U* remain sf>. Present costs as liiuli as $10 an acre on tli*' 

 jfo<Hl land ure not at all uncommon anions i;row<'rs nnIih ar«' succeHsful 

 and of coiirso there are larp* areas in alfalfa that are now payinjr 

 more than that. Ff»r an average, or haM'. however, which will be less 

 than iusfitied for the In^tter lanrls and too much for the poorer lands 

 in alfjilfa. a figure of P^ is suuiJesied. Kveii $^ will seem to s<»me too 

 hijrh for u ba.se pernii.«isible cost f«ir this en»p. In this connection it 

 should be renienilMTed that the upper Sjin Joaipiin Valley is very favor- 

 ablv situated with reference to the larjre population centers of southern 

 California. 



It must Im» recoirni/ed that the cost of irriiration water fop establislied 

 area>. can W higher than for proj««ets in the niakint;. that is, if the 



