RANGE WATERING PLACES IN THE SOUTHWEST 
7 
Table 1 shows the numbers of reservoirs on each range which fur- 
nished water for the periods indicated, during each of the three years. 
It also shows the percentage of the total area of each range within 114 
miles of water in each instarice. 
This distance is a pproximately the 
satisfactory travel limit from water for cattle on these ranges. 
TABLE 1.—COomparative sufficiency of water 
12-month basis 9-month basis 5-month basis 
R if Per cent Per cent Per cent 
ate aN Number | of total | Number] of total | Number | of total 
of usable} range |ofusable| range | ofusable| range 
reservoirs| within |reservoirs| within |reservoirs| within 
114 miles 11% miles 114 miles 
NO, We 5 SAS a ae ee eran re 8 40 9 45 13 65 
INO Qe eS ee es re 3 25 4 35 7 50 
The reservoirs on range | are well scattered; those on range 2 are 
bunched toward one end of the area. 
Table 2 shows that periods of most pronounced water scarcity were 
shorter, and the percentage of range easily reached from water was 
larger on range No. 1 than on range No 
TABLE 2.—Most critical water periods 
1919 1920 1921 
Total 
s duration 
. Per cent Per cent er cent | of most 
Range unit xy : ; oe 
Duration of range Duration of range Duration ofrange | critical 
in months within in months within in months within periods 
1% miles 1144 miles 144 miles | (months) 
Oe water of water of water 
INO, 1c eee 2 50 ¥% 50 2 50 4%, 
INQ, DoS See aE ee ie oe 3 40 1 25 216 25 6% 
In other words, the most critical times on range No. 1, when only 
about 50 per cent of the range lay within 114 miles of water, lasted 
a total of four and one-half months during the three-year period, 
whereas on range No. 2 there were six and one-half months when 
the percentage of range within that distance from water dropped to 
40 or less. Even if stock were equally distributed, this would mean 
about twice as many animals at each water on range No. 2 as on range 
No: 1. 
On the basis of intensity of use during the period of study, the 
two ranges compare as shown in Table 3: 
TABLE 3.—Utilization comparisons 
| 
; Range 1,} Range 2, 
Degree of grazing per cent | per cent 
of area of area 
(OO AOLRER RACY | hese a NF yah es ERS ae aN en ca ae eee Nga Vitae OO aay 8 29 
Moderately to closely grazed i SI soe uae) a a ae Co eee ne chia line 69 44 
hich Ghygena7 cCmee memne ee Anolon La ie Smee Ae acy rer ess Yule TSN el oie hl 19 19 
TAC EL CallllNyaUITa USC Cl meee Mite eset tema constr etegel cay fe Wns aS Pete nna Sue oe ume saa oe 4 8 
52015°—26 2 
