is hard to conceive that a water depth of 200 to 500 feet would materially change the view.

Presently all but the museum section of the Dinosaur National Monument is accessible only to those people who have adequate expensive equipment. A national monument should not be maintained as an exclusive area through inaccessibility.

Attached as addenda B is a series of correspondence between my self and the Honorable Tom Wallace, whom it is reported planned a march by 100,000 people on Washington protesting Echo Park. It is believed that a review of these letters will in a small degree place the problem in practical focus.

ADDENDA A

SECTION I, ARTICLE E-GENERAL ECONOMY

The general economy section of this report was compiled and written for the purpose of eliminating guesswork, rumor, and distortion of facts in consideration of Curecanti as it will effect the economy of the Gunnison Basin.

It was necessary to consider the effect of Curecanti (a) during the construction period, and (b) during the post construction period. Background statistics were compiled and related in dollar figures to the Gunnison Basin projects. Previous considerations of Curecanti have been so limited in scope that no cognizance was taken of the distribution of the money spent in the area for construction. The building of new farmhouses, the additional income from crops and increased cattle production were not considered.

This report on general economy sets forth in considerable detail the breakdown costs, the allocation of project payroll to various types of consumer expenditures, the breakdown of participating projects costs and the allocation of participating projects payroll to various types of consumer expenditures. The capital farm increase as a result of construction of Curecanti and its participating projects is developed. The allocation of annual farm expenditures at the retail level is projected. And, many other significant economic factors are brought to light. The studies from which these facts and estimates were obtained depend upon official data for their basis. In developing this section we have taken a positive approach to the question of, What does Curecanti mean to the area? TABLE B-7.—Totals, all counties under Curecanti development

NOTE. We have left out 1,230 acres of supplemental land in the North Delta project which is presently irrigated and 110 acres under Cebolla which will not be included.

SECTION 1, ARTICLE B, POINT 3-NEW FARMS CREATED BY PARTICIPATING PROJECTS There follows under this portion of the report two tables which are desig nated as follows:

Table 1-B--3a and table 1-B-3b.

Each of these tables is preceded by an explanation of the table's purpose. Factual, official information has been used at the conclusions set forth in the tables. All values have been determined on the belief of 100 percent completion of the entire Gunnison River project.

Increased value

Farmlands, buildings, implements, machinery, and livestock with full development of the Gunnison River project in the following counties: Gunnison, Montrose, Delta, Mesa, Ouray, and Saguache..

In the following table each county is handled separately. The year 1945 is used in arriving at values, the latest year for which figures are available from the Bureau of the Census.

The legends used on the table are as follows: 1. Colorado Yearbook, 1948-50. 2. Gunnison River Project Colorado No. 4Sa, 82-0, the Jex Report. 3. Best available reports from experts in the field such as the county agent, civil engineers, etc.

The column headings are self-explanatory except as listed below:

6. Average irrigated acres per farm: Obtained by dividing the total number

of farms of a county into the irrigated acres of the county.

7. Size and number of new farms made possible by project: Due to the lack of dry farming land in these counties it is assumed that the additional acres of land on a farm in excess of the irrigated land is grazing land. The average number of acres of grazing land per farm has been determined. The assessed valuation of grazing land has been compared with that of irrigated land to arrive at the approximate worth of grazing land to a farm. The worth thus established is translated into irrigated acres and added to the average "irrigated acres per farm" to make the worth of the "new farms" equal to "average farms" now in existence in the counties.

The above procedure compensates completely for the smaller size of the new, completely irrigated farms. This new number of farm units is even more conservative when it is considered that additional grazing lands adjacent to them will be utilized. It is impossible to determine the amount of these grazing lands so they are not being computed in this report.

It is to be noted that the value of the land is tied directly to assessed valuation, which is a most reliable criterion. The material used in establishing the number of new farms made possible by the Gunnison River project was taken from the Colorado Yearbook, 1948-50, and the Gunnison River project, Colorado No. 48a. 82-0 (Jex Report).

8. Increased value of lands and buildings.

9. Increased value of implements and machinery.

10. Increased value of livestock: Obtained by applying the percentage increase of new farms to the actual 1945 value of lands and buildings on farms, of implements and machinery on farms, and of livestock on farms, as shown by the 1948-50 Colorado Yearbook.

11. Number of acres supplied supplemental irrigation and value increased caused by supplemental irrigation: There follows a letter from the Montrose County agent, who did research in arriving at the increased valuations caused by supplemental irrigation. His recommendations have been used in determining such values. It will be noted that no increase was used in farmland and buildings, in farm implements and machinery-that only a 50-percent increase in livestock valuation is used, thus making the report very conservative.

13. Additional tax levies: The Montrose County assessor supplied the information that the avarage mill levy for all counties considered in this report was approximately 45 mills. Considering, however, that increased valuation would cause a lowering of mill levy, a 40-mill levy is used in arriving at the additional tax revenue to each county, when the Gunnison River project is completed. The abstracts of assessments for the various counties may be examined to support the correctness of the 40-mill levy.

1. See section VI-Letter 7.

GENERAL COMMENTS ON TABLE 1-B-3A

In developing the figures on new farms arrived at in column seven of this report, the writer was aware of these discrepancies: (1) Land taken out of use because of rights-of-way was not considered; (2) land taken out of use because of the home and barn site was not considered; (3) the dry acreage converted to irrigated acreage was not deducted. The total of these three factors were computed and did not exceed more than a 3-percent loss. Due to the difficulty of obtaining any official data, and the small percentage involved, these computations were not made in arriving at the final figures; (4) the additional grazing land adjacent to the participating projects was not considered. It is estimated that these additional grazing lands will compensate to some degree for the preceding three points.

Increased farm income and retail expenditures with full development of the Gunnison River project in the following counties: Gunnison, Montrose, Delta, Mesa, Ouray, and Saguache.

In the following table each county is handled separately. The year 1949 is used in arriving at increased farm, income, and retail expenditures, the latest year for which figures are available.

The legends used in the table are as follows: 1. SRDS Consumers Markets 1950-51 (Consumers Markets is recognized as a national authority in reporting factual information on every county in the United States. The official source of all data is given in the opening pages of Consumers Markets). 2. Colorado Yearbook, 1948-50. 3. Gunnison River project, Colorado, No. 4-8a. 82-0, Jex Report.

All column heads have been numbered for ease of examination in determining how figures were reached. Column heads are self-explanatory, with the exception of columns 6 and 11. The explanations follow:

6. Additional farm income from supplemental irrigation to present land: Income in this column was arrived at by: (1) Considering the worth of supplemental irrigation per acre at 50 percent of a newly irrigated acre; (2) translating supplementally irrigated acres into farm units and dividing by 2 to arrive at 50 percent value; (3) multiplying the number of units established in 2 above, by the income per household in column 2.

11. Additional farm retail expenditures from supplemental irrigation to present land: Expenditures in this column were arrived at by: (1) Considering the worth of supplemental irrigation per acre at 50 percent of a newly irrigated acre; (2) translating supplementally irrigated acres into farm units and dividing by 2 to arrive at 50 percent value; (3) multiplying the number of units established in 2 above by the expenditures per household in column 8.