56 DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES 



basis than present water costs and the general conditions which sur- 

 round grain growing, because the data available do not permit of a sta- 

 tistical analysis. While the data indicate the present average cost of 

 water in the Tulare Lake grain section approximates $7.50 per acre per 

 year, this is a higher figure than is considered safe to use for state plan- 

 iiing for water importation. Hence an abitrary figure of $6 per acre per 

 year is suggested with a full realization that some growers w.ill be able 

 and willing to pay as high as $8 or $10, but also with a realization that 

 to some $6 will be considered a burdensome charge. That is approxi- 

 mately 60 per cent of the average pre-harvest cost of producing the 

 crop, not including interest and the water charge, indicated by the 

 records and estimates used herein. It should be remembered, however, 

 that this applies only to the Tulare Lake area, where large-scale grain 

 farming is the rule. 



Cotton. 



The cotton industry in the San Joaquin Valley, while of recent 

 origin, has come to be an important one, with a total area in 1929, 

 according to the crop survey by the State Engineer's office, of 256,853 

 acres. The 1929 plantings in the four upper counties, according to the 

 same source, were Tulare, 69,534 acres ; Kern, 64,306 acres ; Fresno, 

 60,512 acres ; Kings, 22,033 acres. 



Despite the generally pessimistic view of the cotton industry in the 

 San Joaquin Valley, taken perhaps mostly by those not growing this 

 crop, the present size of the industry in the valley requires that it be 

 taken into account in any present planning. The long, warm growing 

 season and the favorable soil conditions in portions of the valley result, 

 under good management, in average yields of about one bale to the acre, 

 with better growers expecting 1.5 bales. 



Three sources were drawn on for cost-of-produetion data. These 

 include 22 records obtained by the Agricultural Extension Service in 

 Kern County from 1926 to 1929, of which three were for renters and 

 not used; five records for 1929 obtained* in the field, and five estimates 

 supplied by large ranch managers. The data are summarized in 

 Table 33. 



In that table the estimates of ranch managers are appreciably lower 

 than actual costs obtained from the other sources. Without doubt one 

 of the reasons for this is a lower allowance for depreciation. Another 

 is the greater economy in the large-scale operations. In the case of 

 liarvest costs, the estimates of the managers are based on contract prices, 

 this presumably accounting for the closeness to uniformity. 



Table 34 presents cost-of-production and harvesting data as worked 

 up by the Farm Management Section of the College of Agriculture, the 

 figures inchi(li7ig allowances for (loi)rociation on work animals and 

 equipment, but (.mitting interest and irrigation Avater. 



The figures in Tables 33 and 34 present sufficient variation to warrant 

 (lifTerences of opinion as to what should be assumed to be average costs. 



In the case of both pro-harvest and harvest costs it will be noticed 

 Hint, so far as records gathered iji the field are concerned, the figures 

 taken from the Ajrricultural Extension Service enterprise efficiency 

 studies lie between the figures or estimates of ranch managers and those 



