Full text of The People of the Drought States, Series V, No. 2
The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION Harry L. Hopkins, Administrator Corrington G ill, Assistant Administrator Howard B. Myers, Director Division of So c ia l Research RESEARCH BULLETIN THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES Prepared by Conrad Taeuber and Carl C. Taylor under the supervision of T. J. Woofter, Jr. Rural Research Section, Division of S o c ia l Re se arch, Works Progress Administration and Carl C. Taylor, in charge Division of Farm Population and Rural Life, Bureau of Agricultural Econom ics, and Social Research for the Resettlement Administration Washington March 1937 CONTENTS Page Introduction.......... .................................. Summary.................................................. The present population of the area...................... 15,000,000 people in the area........................ Domination of agriculture............................ A sparsely settled region............................ A relatively youthful population..................... Settlement of the Great Plains Region.......... ........ Unguided early settlement............................ Settlement before 1870............................... Settlement from 1870 to 1910........................ Sources of early population.......................... The farm population since 1910.......................... An area of rapidly changing population.................. Many settlers did not stay................ ...... . Movement since 1930............. .................... Comparison of migration into and out of the area....... Interstate aspects of recent migrations................. Some factors of maladjustment in settlement....... ..... Adjustment of early settlers difficult.............. Acreage expansion during and after the World War.... Recent migration in areas of acute distress....... . Conclusions............................. ................ Appendix A. Construction of maps showing migration.... Appendix B. County data................................ 1 3 5 5 6 8 9 13 13 14 16 20 25 29 29 34 39 45 49 49 50 52 55 61 67 TEXT TABLES Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. The population of the drought area, by size of community, 1930............................. Age distribution of the total population of 10 drought States and of the United States, 1930 The population of the 10 drought States, 1850 to 1930..................................... Percent increase of population per decade in 10 drought States, 1860 to 1920............... Percent of the total native white population of 10 drought States born outside the State, 1870, 1890, and 1910....................... iii 5 9 15 15 20 iv CONTENTS Page Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Farm population of 10 drought States, 1910 to 1935................................ ........ Migration to and from 10 drought States, 1900 to 1930..................................... Average size of farms in 10 drought States, 1870 to 1935...... ...................... .... Changes in farm population, 1930 to 1935, by amount of Federal aid per capita........... 25 40 51 52 FIGURES Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Open country population in the drought area, 1930................................... . Density of population in the drought afea, 1860-1930.................................. State of birth of native-born white migrants residing in 10 drought States, 1870 and 1910 Net migration of total population in the drought area, 1890-1900........ ................... Net migration of total population in the drought area, 1900-1910............................ Net migration of total population inthedrought area, 1910-1920......... .................. Net migration of total population in the drought area, 1920-1930,............................ Net migrationof farm population in the drought area, 1930-1935...... .............. ....... Native white migrants born in 10 drought States and residing elsewhere, 1910 and 1930..... 10 18 22 30 31 32 33 36 42 APPENDIX TABLES Table A. Table B. Number of counties in the drought area with much migration out and with an actual decrease in population, 1890 to 1930............. ...... Population and number of farms in 803 counties in the Great Plains Region, 1920 to 1935.... 62 68 THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES INTRODUCTION This is the second of a series of three bulletins devoted to the problems of the areas of intense drought distress. The first bulletin outlined the area which has been most severely affected by the droughts of recent years. This bulletin shows how the uncontrolled settlement of the area led to numerous problems of adjustment between the people and the natural re sources. It also shows that there has been much movement of the people of that area. Recent migration out of the area is projected against the background of much movement in the past and the normal "export11 of population. The third bulletin will deal with the efforts to relieve distress during recent years. These bulletins are prepared by the Division of Social Research of the Works Progress Administration, in cooperation with the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the Social Research Unit of the Resettlement Administration. The data in this bulletin are based primarily on census re ports. Wherever possible, county figures were combined to give total figures for the area outlined in the first bulletin of this series. Where that was not possible or where it would have entailed an unjustifiably large amount of work, data were used for the 10 Great Plains States— the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico. Other recent publications concerning the population of these States are: The People of Kansas, by Carroll D. Clark and Roy L. Roberts, published by the Kansas State Planning Board; The People of South Dakota, published by the South Dakota State Planning Board; and the chapter on the Great Plains by C. Warren Thornthwaite, included in Migration and Economic Opportunity, by Carter Goodrich and Others, which presents a study of the relation of climate and population in the Great Plains Area. 1 SUM M A R Y Today 15,000,000 people are living in the 10 Great Plains States, which 50 years ago included only 3i million persons. Population has grown at an unprecedented rate. Once the con quest of the prairie was possible, people from the eastern States and from European countries flocked into this region in large numbers. The development of the railroads which brought the farmer nearer his market, the development of the barbedwire fence which enabled the small homesteader to guard his plantings from the ranger’ s cattle, and the development of the windmill which raised the much needed water to the surface— all contributed to the settlement of the Great Plains States. A large army of restive settlers flocked into the area, laying claim to more and more of the land. The demand for homesteads and the desire to bring each homestead under the plow were so insistent that no thought was given to those factors which might limit agricultural activities. And when conditions seemed un favorable, an unstable population, avoiding rather than solving its problems, simply moved on. But after the first wave of settlement had subsided, a much slower process of adjustment began; villages and cities developed and, in many parts, farms too small for efficient operation were abandoned or combined with others. From the time of earliest settlement, the population of the Great Plains has been a youthful one. Large families have been the rule, and long before wheat seemed necessary to win the World War, the area was producing a human "export crop." Every year has found numbers of young people moving to other farms, to nearby villages and cities, or to other States. Between 1920 and 1930, at least 5 of the 10 States reported more emi gration than immigration and only 1 showed an excess of incoming persons over those outgoing. Despite all the moving about, the opening of new territory for agriculture, and the large rate of natural increase, there has been virtually no change in the number of people living on farms since 1910. This fact indicates that the movement away from farms involved approximately 2k million people, for with out emigration the number of people living on farms in this area would have increased rapidly. The settlement of the Great Plains has necessarily been ex pensive, and frequently it has worked great hardships upon the 3 4 THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES individuals involved. Climate and soil imposed certain limita tions upon agriculture and the development of suitable agri cultural techniques was a slow and frequently a difficult proc ess for settlers, most of whom came from more humid areas. Few pioneers were equipped to meet the ravages of drought or grass hoppers, or the needs of dry land farming, and a large number left even before they had proved up on their claims. Many who had come with high hopes of making their fortunes moved on again when these hopes proved unfounded; others remained, but their children, in turn, moved on. As long as those emigrating were equipped with sufficient resources to establish themselves elsewhere, as long as employ ment opportunities were readily available throughout the Nation, movements out of the region attracted little attention. But now the migrants, whose characteristics and economic condition have been altered by recurring periods of low prices and severe droughts, constitute serious problems for other areas in the United States. In the Great Plains States there is little evi dence that this movement outward, so frequently disruptive to existing social patterns, is fundamentally correcting the diffi culties created by the rapid occupation of the area. Finally, there is no assurance that future immigration may not occur and lead to a repetition of the errors of original settlement. THE PRESENT POPULATION OF THE AREA 15,OOO9000 People In the Area About 15 million people live in the Great Plains drought States,1 that region which was most affected by the droughts of 1934 and 1936 (table 1). Two-fifths of this population, some 6,000,000 in all, live on farms. Table 1— THE POPULATION OF THE DROUGHT AREA, BY SIZE OF COMMUNITY, 1930 Percent of 1930 Population Slate Number of Count i es Included Total Minnesota Iowa Mi ssouri North Dakota0 South Dakota0 Nebraska0 Kansas0 Okl ahoma0 Texas Montana0 Wyoming Colorado New Mexico0 a A ll Total Populat ion 1930 Urban Rural Farms Open Country* Total V illa g e s6 Rural 2,500 to 9,999 10,000 to 24,999 25,000 to 99,999 100,000 and Over 803 14,409,614 39.9 48.1 14.3 62.4 10.3 6.7 5.7 14.9 77 61 14 53 6^ 2,356,165 1,448,178 279,624 680,845 692,849 34.1 41.3 44.5 58.4 56.3 36.9 48.5 47.6 63.2 58.1 12.7 14.8 19.1 20.2 23.0 49.6 63-3 66.7 83-4 81.1 10.3 11.9 4.4 5.9 5.6 4.5 3.5 _ 6.5 8.5 11.5 28.9 4.2 4.8 35.6 9.8 93 105 77 101 56 1,377,963 1,880,999 2,396,040 1,208,468 537,606 42.5 37.6 42.7 37.7 38.1 44.7 45.1 55.6 50.4 53.2 20:0 16.1 10.1 10.7 13.1 64.7 61.2 65.7 61.1 66.3 8.6 10.0 11.2 14.6 10.7 5.7 11.5 7.1 6l. 5 10.3 5.5 4.9 2.4 9.3 12.7 19 47 31 203„952 923,608 423,317 32.0 25.0 37.5 47.0 35 ..4 67.0 20.1 10.7 7.7 67.1 46.1 74.7 16.2 8.6 13.7 16.7 5.1 5.3 9.0 6.3 p e rs o n s l i v i n g o u t s i d e - - 15.5 12.4 13.6 8.5 “ - 31.2 in c o rp o ra t e d p la c e s . ^ In c o r p o r a t e d p la c e s w ith a p o p u la t io n o f l e s s tha n 2 ,5 0 0 . c In c lu d e s e n t i r e S t a t e . Source: F i f t e e n t h C ensu s o f th e U n ited S t a t e s : 1990, P o p u la t io n V o l. I. This block of 10 States— North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado— contains one-eighth of the total population of the United States and one-fifth of its entire farm population. Two areas within these States have been especially affected by the droughts. In the northern area, including most of North Dakota, South Dakota, and contiguous sections, there ate nearly li mil lion people, of whom approximately 800,000 are located on farms. The southern area, which includes northwestern Texas, western ^ h e s e States cover a much larger area than the physiographic area desig nated as the Great Plains. 5 6 THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES Kansas, and adjacent territory, has more than a million people, one-half of whom live on farms. Domination of Agriculture Agriculture and grazing are to the Great Plains Area what coal and ifon are to Pittsburgh, what automobiles are to Detroit, and what shoes are to Brockton, Massachusetts. With the excep tion of the Cotton Belt, no other region in the United States has so large a proportion of its population living on farms, or so large a percentage of its gainfully employed engaged in ag riculture together with so small a percentage involved in manu facturing. Taking this section as a whole, 40 persons out of every 100 live on farms. There is not a single State where the ratio is less than 25 to 100, and in the Dakotas the farm pop ulation constitutes almost 60 percent of the total. It is ap parent, therefore, that the economic and social life of the people on the Great Plains depends to a great extent upon agri cultural enterprise. Within the confines of the Great*Plains proper there are no large industrial centers, the few sizable cities of the area depending directly or indirectly upon agriculture for their support. For the most part, their industries are engaged in the processing and transportation of agricultural products; their financial activities are concerned with farm credit and farm marketing; and their commerce is dominated by that whole sale and retail trade which relates to the smaller towns and to the open country.2 The metropolitan newspapers which circulate in this region reflect the urban interest in agriculture inas much as they report grain, livestock, and other farm produce quotations as completely as the New York papers carry the stock market reports. The various radio stations located in this area display a similar interest in the farmer and his farm, in their efforts to secure and broadcast the latest information on volume of agricultural products marketed and prices received. Although the automobile, the newspaper, and the radio have brought the farmer closer to the city, he continues to have his most intimate contacts with the village. The small town is his service station. Not only does it supply him with items which range in variety from lumber, fencing, and farm implements to the small daily needs of his household, but it likewise provides 2The mining of precious metals in the Black Hills and on the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains affects only a small part of the population; the mining of coal is localized and employs comparatively few persons. Oil production has become important In limited areas of Texas, Oklahoma, Kan sas, and Vfyoming. THE PRESENT POPU L A T I O N OF THE AREA 7 him with a market (or shipping point, at least) for the larger portion of his produce. The varied ties which bind the villagers to agriculture are not fostered by trade alone. Many a small town man has his own memories of a childhood spent in the country; more frequently than not, he has a knowledge of actual farm work which has grown out of first-hand experience. His close relatives may still be farm operators. If he is a substantial business man, his first impulse will often be to reinvest his profits in the land. Again, he may be a "suitcase farmer,11 who lives on his farm only 6 to 8 weeks in the year; or he may be engaged in part- or full time farming on a small tract lying on the outskirts of the village. Another factor which tends to strengthen the bond between village and open country is to be found in the constant inter change of population. For instance, there is the retired farmer who has come to the village where he and his wife hope to enjoy in their declining years that social intercourse which they were denied in the isolation of their earlier rural life. The la borer who lives in town and works either part time or full time on the farm, and the farmer who, as his occupational record shows, has spent several years off the farm are further instan ces of this interchange of population. Although the usual antagonisms between village and farm are not entirely absent, the fundamental interest in agriculture operates to render them largely superficial. Since the pros perity of all other types of activity in the Great Plains Area depends so largely upon the prosperity of agriculture, the farm er easily commands a widespread respect and his welfare stands out as a matter of general import. When farm affairs are thriv ing, business in town will thrive; but when agriculture is suf fering a depression, village and urban interests cannot hope to escape the resulting ill effects. Another factor operating to reduce urban and rural antago nisms derives from the idea that farming is something out of which a man can definitely make money. No activity which offers the allure of possible profits is ever regarded too lightly, either by town or country. In many instances, the farm operator outranks the average villager when comparisons are drawn between the two as to standard of living maintained, capital investment, average amount of operating capital required, and annual income— especially in "good11 years. Whether or not the conception of farming as a money-making proposition is justified does not de tract from its force. In the course of 23 years a certain wheat farm in Sheridan County, Kansas, produced a net income of only $21,000, thus averaging less than $1,000 annually for the entire period. But there was 1 year during this time when the net in come was $20,000, another when it was $10,000, and a third when THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES 8 it was $4,000.3 These years of high income are likely to be publicized and remembered while other years of little or no in come, or even net losses, are frequently disregarded. It is the larger profits which have a way of sticking in men's minds. A Sparsely Settled Region Agriculture in the midcontinent area has been developed on isolated farmsteads in a thinly populated region. Except in the eastern, more humid fringe of the area, and in the few spots devoted to irrigated or specialty crops, agriculture is commonly extensive. Early homestead policy provided for the settlement of four homestead families in each square mile of territory and while that goal was never fully realized, it set the farm pattern for much of the early settlement. Farms of 320 acres, two fami lies per square mile, and later of 640 acres, one family per square mile, gradually replaced the earlier pattern, leaving the region today one of large farms, sparse population, and widely separated homes. It follows that villages and small cities in this section of the country are far apart. Since each village of 500 persons requires a farm population of 500 to insure its support, gen erally speaking, a surrounding territory of no less than 100 square miles is needed for its existence. Or, in other words, if the sustaining district requisite for a settlement of 500 were conceived as a circle with the village as its center, the radius of that circle would be nearly 6 miles long. It is ob vious that the area necessary for the maintenance of a small town in a locality where grazing predominates would be several times larger than in a community devoted to general farming. To be sure, the number of people living in cities has been increasing rapidly, and, as a matter of fact, a large share of the increase in total population throughout the Great Plains has been in the cities. In Montana, for example, the urban population increased by 9,000 persons between 1920 and 1930, although the population of the State as a whole decreased by 11,000. Nevertheless, this entire region is still much less urbanized than the remainder of the United States. North Dakota in 1930 had only 16.6 percent of its population in urban areas (places of 2,500 persons or more), less than any other State in the country (table 1). South Dakota and New Mexico are prima rily rural, with -uM>an populations of only 19 percent and 25 percent , respectively. Colorado, with 54 percent of its people in cities and toWns, is the most highly urbanized State in this i* Goodrich, Carter, and Others, Migration and Economic Opportunity, Phila delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1936, chap. V, pp. 20*2-250. This chapter was prepared by C. Warren Thornthwaite. THE PRESENT PO P U L A T I O N OF THE AREA 9 group, but the cities of Denver, Colorado Springs, and Pueblo account for three-fourths of its entire urban population. The predominantly rural characteristics of these 10 States can be gauged by the fact that there are only 7 cities in the area shown in figure 1 which have more than 100,000 inhabitants, while there are only 15 others with a population numbering more than 25,000 each. A Relatively Youthful Population In comparison with other parts of the Nation, the people of the Great Plains Region are young. In 1930 the proportion of children under 5 years of age was higher here than elsewhere in the country, and the proportion of men and women 65 or over was lower. This was especially true of the rural farm and urban population. It is probable that the higher proportion of chil dren and the lower proportion of the aged in this area, as com pared with the remainder of the country, will continue to hold through 1940 except as regards people living in villages. In 1930, 5.4 percent of all persons in the United States were 65 years of age or over, but in the Great Plains the percentage was only 4.8 (table 2). The smallest proportion of persons of this age group, only 4 percent, was found among the people liv ing on farms. Even in 1940, according to the estimates of Thompson and Whelpton,4 only 5.5 percent of the farm people will be 65 or over. Table 2— AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TOTAL POPULATION OF 10 DROUGHT STATES AND OF THE UNITED STATES, 1930 State Total Population 1930 T o ta l, Uni ted States 122,775,046 Total, 10 States Percent in Each Age Group Under 5 Years 9.3 5-14 Years 15-29 Years 20.1 26.3 30-44 Years 21.4 45-64 Years 17.4 65 Years and Over Unknown 5.4 0.1 15,075,690 10.3 21.4 27.5 20.2 15.7 4.8 0.1 North Dakota Sçuth Dakota Nebraska Kansas Oklahoma 680,845 692,849 1,377,963 1,880,999 2,396,040 11.1 10.3 9.5 9.1 11.0 23.2 22.1 20.2 19.7 22.7 27.3 26.0 25.9 25.4 28.4 18.5 20.3 21.0 20.5 19.3 15.3 15.9 17.1 18.4 14.5 4.5 5.3 6.3 6.9 4.1 0.1 0.1 - Texas Montana Wyomi ng Colorado New Mexico 5,824,715 537,606 225,565 1,035,791 423,317 10.5 9.2 10.0 9.2 12.7 21.7 20.5 20.3 19.7 24.0 29.1 24.6 26.2 25.0 26.8 20.2 22.0 14.4 18.7 16.0 18.7 4.0 5.0 3.8 6.0 4.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 - S o u rc e : f i f t e e n t h C en su s o f th e U n ite d S t a t e s : 1930, P o p u la t io n Vol. Ill, 23.6 21.3 18.7 13.8 - t a b le 3 . It is a fact, however, that the proportion of aged persons is increasing in all parts of the country, ^t'nd in the rural ^Thompson, W. and Whelpton, P.K., Estimates of Future Population by States, National Resources Board, Washington, D. C., December 1934. 10 THE PEOPLE OP THE DROUGHT STATES Fis. I - O P E N COUNTRY P O P U L A T IO N IN T H E D R O U G H T A R E A 19 30 Source: Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930, Population v o l.I, table 4 EACH DOT R E P R E S E N T S 1000 P E R S O N S 139051 AF - 2402, W. P. A. THE P R ESENT P O P U L A T I O N OF THE AREA 11 sections of the Great Plains States the percentage is likely to increase more rapidly than elsewhere. On one hand, the aging of the population in this area can be attributed to the general decline in birth rates which is being felt all over the country, for, as the present generation grows older, there are fewer children to take its place. Again, emigration of any large pro portion of the population over a periodof time tends to increase the proportion of aged persons in the population remaining in the area. The persons concerned in these migrations during re cent years have included families with young children as well as the young single adults who accounted largely for such move ments from farms in earlier years. The possible consequences of migratory movements are strik ingly illustrated by the population changes occurring in Montana between 1920 and 1930. The total number of persons living on farms decreased nearly 11 percent, a decrease which could have come about only as the result of considerable migration from the farms in that State. Since the persons moving away were mainly young adults, the proportion of farm operators between 25 and 35 years of age was only one-half as large in 1930 as it had been in 1920, while the percentage of those 65 years old and over had nearly doubled. There is no evidence that other parts of the Great Plains have experienced changes in age composition as extreme as those in Montana during the 10 years immediately before 1930, even though some emigration has been characteristic of all States in this area. The trend toward an older population can also be seen in the data which relate to men working on farms. Since there have been fewer young men in the last two decades to replace the earlier generation, farm workers on the average represented an older group in 1930 than they did in 1920, and again, an older group in 1920 than in 1910. For instance, only 29 percent of all men working on farms in the United States were 45 or more years of age in 1910, whereas 38 percent were in that age group in 1930. Although the farm workers in the Great Plains States have been consistently younger than the average for the Nation as a whole, and although they still exhibited this distinguish ing trait in 1930, their advantage in this respect is notice ably decreasing. It may be emphasized that any considerable migration out of the 10 States in this area during the next several years may rapidly increase the proportion of old people in the population. In the event of such an increase, readjustments in agricultural practices might become more difficult and the need for public and private assistance might be notably augmented. 139051 0 — 37----- 2 SETTLEMENT OP THE GREAT PLAINS REGION Unguided Early Settlement Whether or not any attempt to guide settlement in the Great Plains could have been effective is a question that is now purely academic. Nor is it certain that the information concerning the area which was available in the eighties and nineties could have been used effectively in promoting settlement in some sections and retarding it in others. A carefully formulated policy might have provided for more gradual occupation as new agricultural techniques were developed, and it might have pro vided that certain portions of the region be withheld from ag riculture altogether ;but again such provisions might have been impractical. The fact remains that no studied policy was evolved. Instead, the temper of the times was such that the Government made every ef fort to divest itself as quickly as possible of the remaining public domain. The pressure was irresistible, and treaties with Indian tribes were amended or abrogated as more and more new territory was demanded. Neither the dangers of the frontier nor the attempts of the United States Army to halt occupation could check the movement— the Oklahoma land rush set forth in dramatic fashion the attitudes which prevailed. From one stand point the policy of actual settlement, if it can be called a policy, was successful. Rarely, if ever, has so large an area been occupied and brought under cultivation in so short a time. Rarely, if ever*, have so many persons attempted settlement under conditions with which they were so wholly unfamiliar. As a large-scale experiment, the conquest of the Plains has few or no parallels. Speculation, encouraged by the widely diffused ownership of small tracts, contributed greatly to the problems of early set tlement. No methods were devised to prevent such perversion of the original intent of the homestead laws; and speculators, both large and small, un^ ^ tonably constituted a varied and numerous groiv* ‘ r‘ the Great Plains plan ning to re^. .1; I . 5 iry to establish title to a parcel c,*7 / -> : Maa7j|)j6 tliem ¿vore si le aud the homesteaders w e r e ^ ^ M I , old people, excitement seekers, rovers, 13 THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES 14 and people from the most widely separated walks of life. Not infrequently the homesteader had never been on a farm previous to his filing. It was a common practice for business men and other town people to file on homesteads.5 A study in 12 townships of western North Dakota classifies ne.arly one-half of the 669 farm operators who had moved out of the territory by 1925 as having come in the first place chiefly for speculative purposes. No more than one-fourth of these spec ulators had had any farming experience before filing on their homesteads and most of them left the area much more quickly than those persons who had come with the intention of locating permanently.6 Settlement Before 1870 Although the persons bound for Oregon and California during the forties crossed over the Great Plains, the settlement of this area did not begin until the decade between 1850 and 1860. Then it occurred in eastern Texas, Kansas, and Nebraska. It is true that population had begun to drift into Texas before this time, but the force of the flow did not reach the plains area of the State until almost 1900. The same can be said of New Mexico. Like the whole body of westward migrants during this period, the early populations of the region were cosmopolitan. The population of Kansas in 1860, for instance, included persons who were born in every State and in 28 foreign countries.7 Nevertheless, the Great Plains Area was for the most part origi nally settled by persons who came from Iowa, Missouri, and States immediately east of them. While 90 percent of the 107,000 persons in Kansas in 1860 had been born in other States or in foreign countries, almost 12 percent were natives of Missouri and more than 50 percent were born no farther east than Ohio. Many of those who were not born in Missouri had lived in that State immediately preceding their move directly across the bor der into Kansas. Before 1850 there was very little occupation of the area west of the 96th meridian, a line which runs north and south near the present cities of Lincoln and Beatrice in Nebraska, Topeka and Coffeyville in Kansas, and Gainesville and Houston in Texas. Willson, E. A., Hoffsommer, H. C . , and Benton, A. H., Rural Changes in Western North Dakota, North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, Bull. No. 214, Fargo, North Dakota, January 1926. 6 Idem. ^Eighth Census of the United States: I860, Population Vol. I. SETTLEMENT OF THE GREAT PLAINS REGION 15 The few early settlements that did exist in the 10 Great Plains States clung closely to the partially timbered areas and to the valleys of the larger streams. By 1860 the population of these States was 873,000, with almost 70 percent in Texas and more than 92 percent in Texas, Kansas, and New Mexico (table 3). The remaining 8 percent was distributed throughout Colorado, Nebraska, and the Dakota Territory. But if two persons per square mile is taken as a criterion of the beginning of pioneer settlement, then no part of Colorado or the Dakota Territory had really reached the settlement stage by 1860. Table 3— THE POPULATION OF THE 10 DROUGHT STATES, 1850 TO 1930 State T o ta l, 10 S ta te s 1850 274,139 Increase in number over preceding decade Percent increase over preceding decade Texas New Mexico Colorado Kansas Nebraska North Dakotal South Dakota} Montana Wyomi ng Oklahoma Source: 212,592 61,547 - 1900 1910 1920 1930 872,892 1.481,603 3,549,264 6,303,541 8,167,482 11,246,147 13,083,829 15,075,690 598,753 608,711 2,067,661 2,754,277 1,863,941 3,078,665 1,837,682 1,991,861 218 70 140 78 30 38 16 15 604,215 93,516 34,277 107,206 28,841 818,579 91,874 39,864 364,399 122,993 1,591,749 119,565 194,327 996,096 452,402 2,235,527 160,282 413,249 1,428,108 1,062,656 3,048,710 195,310 539,700 1,470,495 1,066,300 3,896,542 327,301 799,024 1,690,949 1,192,214 4,663,228 360,350 939,629 1,769,257 1,296,372 5,824,715 423,317 1,035,791 1,880,999 1,377,963 [190,983 [348,600 142,924 62,555 258,657 319,146 401,570 243,329 92,531 790,391 577,056 583,888 376,053 145,965 1,657,155 646,872 636,547 548,889 194,402 2,028,283 680,845 692,849 537,606 225,565 2,396,040 1870 1860 1880 1890 4,837 14,181 135,177 - - 20,595 9,118 39,159 20,789 - - - - f i ft e e n t h Census o f the United S tates: 1030, Population Vol. I, p. 10. For the 10 years ending in 1870, the United States Census reported marked increases in the populations of the settled areas throughout the region, showing gains of 326 percent in Nebraska, 240percent in Kansas, 193 percent in Dakota Territory, 36 percent in Texas, and 16 percent in Colorado (table 4). T a b le 4— PERCENT INCREASE OF POPULATION PER DECADE IN 10 DROUGHT STATES, 1860 TO 1920 Percent Increase of Population 1860 to 1870 North Dakota! South Dakotaj Nebraska Kansas Oklahoma Texas Montana Wyoming Colorado New Mexico Source: 1870 to 1880 1880 to 1890 193.2 853-2 299.2 326.5 239.9 - 267.8 173.4 - 134.9 43.4 - 35.5 94.5 90.1 128.0 387.5 40.4 265.0 200.9 112.7 34.1 - 16.3 -1.8 f i f t e e n t h C en su s o f th e U n ite d S t a t e s : 30.1 1930, P o p u la t io n V o l. 1890 to 1900 1900 to 1910 1910 to 1920 167.1 Il5 .2 0-3 3.0 205.6 80.8 45.4 11.8 15.0 109.7 12.1 9.0 8.7 4.6 22.4 36.4 70.3 47.9 27.8 54.5 57.7 48.0 67.6 19.7 46.0 33-2 17.6 10.1 30.6 21.9 I, p. 12. But since the increase in population in Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado for the decade was approximately equal to the number of persons added by the excess of births over deaths, these three States evidently had little or no net inward migration 16 THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES for the census period. People were, however, flowing rapidly into Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakota Territory. Total popu lation in these States jumped from 141,000 in 1860 to 502,000 in 1870, although the area occupied by pioneer settlement ex panded very little during the period (figure 2 and table 3). Settlement From 1870 to 1910 From 1870 to 1880, this region was to experience still further and more rapid settlement. The population of Texas went beyond a million and a half; that of Kansas approximated a million; and that of Nebraska, a half million. Colorado had nearly 200,000 people, the Dakotas more than 135,000, and New Mexico almost 120,000. Population, although still small in both States, almost doubled in Montana and more than doubled in Wyoming (table 3). During this decade there was also a marked expansion of the area of settlement. The western boundary of the main region containing a population of two or more persons per square mile closely approached the western boundaries of Kansas and south west Nebraska, and moved to the center of Texas. At the same time, the various scattered areas having a population of this density more than doubled in northern New Mexico, central Colo rado, southeastern North Dakota, southeastern Wyoming, and western Montana (figure 2). Considering the Great Plains States, with the single exception of Oklahoma, population increased 2,068,000, almost 140 percent, and the area of settlement more than doubled in size. Nearly all of Kansas, one-half of the States of Nebraska, Texas, and Colorado, and one-third of New Mexico were settled by farming population by the end of the decade. Between 1880 and 1890 geographic occupation was practically completed in Kansas and Nebraska and was spreading rapidly in all other States of the region. Frontier settlement pushed nearly halfway across the Dakotas, spread over most of Colo rado, and rapidly covered western and central Montana. The pop ulation gained ¿65 percent in Montana, 201 percent in Wyoming, and 299 percent in Dakota Territory (table 4). A small section of east central Oklahoma which was opened for settlement near the end of the decade was occupied by 259,000 persons at the beginning of 1890 (table 3). Thus, all the States in the region were in the process of settlement at the close of this 10-year period. The total population had more than quadrupled between 1870 and 1890 (table 3). In no decade following 1890 did the Great Plains Area gain so greatly in percent of population or in percent of occupied terri tory as it had done in the 10 years immediately preceding that date. From 1890 to 1900, population increased only 1,864,000, SETTLEMENT OF THE GREAT PLAINS REGION 17 or 30 percent (table 3). There was, however, much movement within the region. Droughts occurred during this period and speculative values as well as prices collapsed. The remainder of Oklahoma was opened for settlement, and the opportunities of a pioneer country were offered to many who were already feeling the pressure of economic distress. Numerous homesteads were abandoned, and many persons who had settled only recently in western Nebraska, western Kansas, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico shifted to other parts. The western sections of Kansas and Nebraska and the drier portions of other States suffered net losses in 114 counties, and some areas were aban doned altogether. This was the time when the population of Omaha, Nebraska, declined from 140,000 to 103,000. Increases in population as shown for the various States of the area clearly reflect the influences at work; for while Nebraska and Kansas reported increases of only 0.3 and 3.0 percent respectively, Oklahoma gained 206 percent, Montana 70 percent, and North Dakota 67 percent (table 4). From 1900 to 1910 total population in the 10 States increased 3,079,000, nearly 38 percent. As soon as the effects of the adverse conditions of the previous decade had worn off, renewed immigration flowed into areas which had reported emigration prior to 1900. Consequently, the area west of the 100th meridian rapidly increased its numbers between 1900 and 1910, but popu lation changes to the east of this line were less consistent. Oklahoma’ s increase in population for this period was 110 per cent; North Dakota's, 81 percent; and Wyoming's, 58 percent. Except in their eastern fringes where there were either no gains at all or even some losses as a result of migration, the Dakotas as a whole reported a continued influx of population. But from southeastern Nebraska and eastern Kansas there was, with little exception, a considerable exodus. To what extent persons who had returned to eastern counties of these States during the nineties were represented among the migrants of this decade cannot be determined, but undoubtedly there were many such who were again venturing west. Although population continued to increase in the region as a whole until 1930, very little new territory was occupied after 1910 except in Wyoming and eastern Montana (figure 2). As practically all the territory settled before 1870 lay east of the 100th meridian and as the larger portion of the area lying between this meridian and the Continental Divide was occupied by 1910, it can be said, roughly, that the Great Plains were settled in the 40 years between 1870 and 1910. A map showing the progress of settlement decade by decade would reveal population flowing steadily westward in 1870, the two main currents entering eastern Texas and eastern Kansas and Nebraska with a thin stream coming up from the south into THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES 18 Fig. 2 - D E N S I T Y OF P O P U L A T IO N IN T H E D R O U G H T A R E A 1 8 6 0 -1 9 3 0 I860 1880 1870 1890 SO URCE: A T L A S OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE UNITED STATES, PUBLISHED JOINTLY BY THE C A R N E G IE INSTITUTIO N OF WASHINGTON, D.C. AN D THE AM ERIC A N GEOGRAPHICAL SO CIETY OF NEW YORK SETTLEMENT OF THE GREAT PLAINS REGION 19 Fig . 2 - D EN SIT Y O F POPULATION IN TH E DROUGHT A R E A I8 60 - 1930 - Continued 1900 1910 LEGEND IN H A BIT A N TS PER SQUARE MILE | | FEWER THAN 2 ^ ^ 2 - 5 |||| 6 - 17 1MB 18 - 4 4 45 -8 9 H 90 AND MORE A F -2 4 2 2 , W. P. A. 20 THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES central New Mexico an i Colorado. By 1880 the tide westward had moved well across 1 he States of Kansas and Nebraska in the north, as far west as central Texas in the south, and had entered the Dakota Territory- The stream from the south had widened into a lake spreading over north central New Mexico and central Colorado and reaching into southeast Wyoming. By 1890 the west ward tide had completely covered Kansas and most of Nebraska, had reached the plains section of Texas, and had moved almost halfway across the Dakotas, connecting in northern Colorado and southern Wyoming with the populations already settled there. The areas of settlement in New Mexico and Colorado had expanded in all directions, and something like a great irregular pool of population had appeared in western and central Montana (figure 2). Oklahoma, by reason of its Indian occupation, was the one State in this group which still remained largely unsettled by 1890-. By 1900 the tide had pushed a little farther west in Texas and had covered all of Oklahoma except the "panhandle” or "strip"; but it had receded somewhat in the western parts of Kansas and Nebraska, in the Dakotas, and in the eastern parts of Colorado and New Mexico. By 1910 practically all the plains section of Texas, all of northern New Mexico, all of Oklahoma, and most of Colorado were covered, while the areas which had lost population during the previous decade were once more being filled in. Sources of Early Population While much of the increase in the population of the Great Plains States between 1870 and 1910 represented children born into families residing in this region, no other combination of Table 5— PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NATIVE WHITE POPULATION OF 10 DROUGHT STATES BORN OUTSIDE THE STATE, 1870, 1890, AND 1910 State North Dakota! South DakotaJ Nebraska Kansas Oklahoma Texas Montana Wyoming Colorado New Mexico Source : 1890 1910 79.8 80.2 - f 56.5 \ 64.9 63.7 61.6 97.8 52.9 54.5 40.8 46.4 71.2 49.5 87.1 95.2 80.8 3-1 37.2 75.0 81.0 75.1 18.8 28.0 66.1 73-1 64.6 41.5 1870 84.2 G a lp in , C. J. and Manny, T. B . , I n t e r s t a t e M ig r a tio n s Among th e M otive tfh ite P o p u la tio n as I n d ic a t e d by D i f f e r e n c e s Betw een S t a t e o f B ir.th and, S t a t e o f R e s id e n c e , U. S. Departm ent o f A g r i c u lt u r e , Bureau o f A g r i c u lt u r a l E con om ics, O c to b e r 193», t a b l e 2, p. 7. 10 States could be found in the whole country which would show for that period a consistently greater percentage of total pop ulation born elsewhere (table 5). Since families moving into the Great Plains Region have SETTLEMENT OF THE GREAT PLAINS REGION 21 tended to bring with them the farming practices of other more humid areas, and since maladjustnents of population to land have resulted, the previous locations of such families are of considerable importance. The vast majority of the migrants came from an area roughly bounded on the west by the eastern limits of the Great Plains States and on the east by the Appalachian-Allegheny Mountains, a portion of the country dominated by medium-sized farms and a row-crop agriculture. The 10 States of the Nation which have contributed the greatest numbers of their native born to the 10 Great Plains States are Missouri,Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Ken tucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia (figure 3). 22 THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES Fig. 3 - STATE OF BIRTH OF N A T IV E -B O R N WHITE M IGRANTS RESIDING IN 10 DROUGHT STATES 1870 A N D 1910 MONTANA DAKOTA TERRITORY NEBRASKA SETTLEMENT OF THE GREAT PLAINS REGION F ig .3 23 -STA TE OF BIRTH OF NATIVE-BORN WHITE MIGRANTS RESIDIN G IN 10 DROUGHT STATES 1870 A N D 1910 - Continued COLORADO NEW MEXICO I. IL L IN O IS ¿ . M IS S O U R I 3. O H IO 4. IN D IA N A 1. T E N N E S S E E 2. A L A B A M A 3. M I S S I S S I P P I 4. K E N T U C K Y AF-2430.W.RA. THE F A R M POPULATION SINCE 1910 Although there has been much moving about, with population losses reported in some areas, the number of people on farms in the Great Plains States on January 1, 1935, was almost exactly what it had been on January 1, 1930, on January 1, 1920, and on January 1, 1910 (table 6). Between 1910 and 1935, the esti mated increase in farm population for these 10 States was only 45,000, which was less than one-third the number of children born to farm women in this area during any one normal year of * the period. Table 6— FARM POPULATION OF 10 DROUGHT STATES, 1910 TO 1935 State Total 1910 Estimated® January 1 1920 Census® January 1 1930 Est imatedb/ January 1 1935 Census0 January 1 6,067,119 6,093,862 6,117,500 1920 to 1930 1930 to 1935 6,111,835 0.4 0.4 -0.1 6.8 -2.3 -7.5 -11.2 -0.5 -0.1 6.9 -0.5 -4 .8 -0.3 -2.2 -7 .5 -0.1 0.3 0.1 -0.7 102.8 28.8 31.2 -12.0 2.3 -10.7 7.1 4.7 -3-2 North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska Kansas Oklahoma 369,212 370,820 631,467 830,197 1,022,016 394,500 362,221 584,172 737,377 1,017,327 394,300 287,300 581,300 701,900 1,014,300 385,614 358,204 580,694 703,743 1,015,562 Texas Montana Wyomi ng Colorado New Mexico- 2,293,474 111,273 52,264 202,857 183,539 2.277,773 225,; 667 e l 306 266,073 161,446 2,329,700 201,600 72,100 278,600 156,300 2,332,693 195,262 74,507 276,198 189,358 a T ru e sd e 1 1 , Leon E . , far* Population the C en sus, 19 2 6 , t a b le 8, p .' *5 . ^ By Bureau o f A g r i c u l t u r a l of the United States, Eco n o m ics on b a s i s o f C United States Census of Agriculture: JS3S. Percent Change 1910 to 1920 0.1 -3.1 3.3 -0.9 21.2 U. S. Departm ent o f Commerce, Bureau o f fifteenth Census of the United States, State *r B u l l e t in s . Second S e r i e s , ta ke n a s o f A p r i l 15, 1930. t a b l e 2. Since 1920 the region’ s farm population has not varied by more than 5 percent in any year.8 Between 1920 and 1930 changes were irregular, but no large increases or decreases were re ported. Small losses Occurred during 1928 and 1929 and were continued through 1930, but during 1931 and 1932 slight gains were made. The number of people living on farms declined dur ing 1933 in North Dakota, Montana, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas. In 1934, farm population decreased in each of the 10Great Plains States. By January 1, 1935, therefore, migration from farms had largely offset the increases which occurred between 1931 and 1933, and the number of farm people in the regidn as a whole Data concerning annual changes in the farm population, natural Increase, and migration are based on information in the files of the Bureau of Agri cultural Economics. 25 26 THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES again approximated The 1930 figure, the actual change being less than one-tenth of 1 percent. During 1935 the further losses in each of these 10 States, except Nebraska, were such that total farm population on January 1, 1936, was nearly 2 percent less than it had been the previous year. It seems likely, too, that there were continued decreases during 1936. Although the farm population of the region as a whole showed little change between 1930 and 1935, there were striking changes in some parts of the area. Some gains were made in the western parts of Kansas and Nebraska and in several counties of western Oklahoma, southwestern Wyoming, and that section of North Dakota which lies south of the Missouri River, but in general the drier portions of the Great Plains Area reported losses in num bers. Decreases in farm population were notable in the Panhan dle of Oklahoma and even more so in the cotton-growing area which embraces southwestern Oklahoma and the adjoining eastern margin of the Great Plains of Texas, but the change in the wheat-growing section of the Texas Panhandle was slight. The farms showed marked losses in northwestern North Dakota and northeastern Montana, in central and eastern South Dakota, and in the irrigated Arkansas and South Platte Valleys of Colorado. Little change was reported for western Kansas and Nebraska and on the plains of western Colorado, but the number of persons on farms was considerably augmented in the Rio Grande Valley and in the mountainous portion of New Mexico. As a general rule, the drier parts of all the Great Plains States have been losing some farm population while the more humid parts have been reporting slight gains. The areas of severe drought distress, as measured by amounts of Federal aid p e r c a p i t a b e t w e e n 1933 and 1936, showed decreases in farm pop ulation.9 In the 137 counties in which Federal aid amounted to $175 or more per capita, the farm population decreased by 4.5 percent between 1930 and 1935, but in the 179 counties in which such aid was less than $58 per capita, it increased by 4.4 percent (table 9,‘page 52). The farms suffered the greatest loss in population, 5.1 percent, in the 148 counties in which per capita aid ranged from $119 to $175. Whether or not high grants and benefits tended to retard or increase the outward migration of persons living on farms cannot be tested by these figures, but it does appear to be significant that the greatest decline did not occur in areas with the most Federal aid per capita. Since the Great Plains States have birth rates which are consistently high— among the highest in the entire country— the fact that farm population in this entire area has remained 9 See Cronin, F. D. and Beers, H. W . , Areas of Intense Drought Distress, 1930-1936, Research Bulletin, Series V, No. 1, Division of Social Re search, Works Progress Administration. THE FARM POPULA T I O N SINCE 1910 27 at a stationary level evidences a considerable movement away from farms. Between 1910 and 1935, the number of babies born to farm women in this area exceeded the number of farm persons dying by nearly 100,000 per year; and, had there been no migra tion to or from farms, total farm population would have increased to this extent. But the influx of population had been so great during the first wave of rapid settlement that within a com paratively short time many parts had acquired as many people as they were able to absorb. Hence the children and grand children of the early settlers, reaching maturity and seeking economic opportunities, were often forced to migrate. As a matter of fact, net migration from the farms in the Great Plains was approximately 2k million persons from 1910 to 1935. Some of these persons went to nearby towns and villages, but others became the human Mexportsn which this area has been contribut ing to the remainder of the United States in increasing num bers during recent years. From 1930 to 1935 there was a natural increase of 490,000 in the farm population of the area, while the number of people moving to farms during these 5 years and still remaining there on January 1, 1935, was 356,000. The total increases would, therefore, have been 846,000 if there had been no migration away from farms; but since there was a decrease of about 6,000 persons (table 6), it can be estimated that approximately 852,000 persons had moved away during this period and had not returned by January 1, 1935. It follows that the outgoing migration ex ceeded the incoming by nearly half a million persons. This was less than half the number who moved away from farms in the pre ceding 10 years of urban prosperity, 1920 to 1930; during those years, the net movement away from farms amounted to almost 1,200,000. Since many of the persons who left the farms went to nearby towns and cities, it does not follow that there were corresponding decreases in the total population of these States. More than half the migration away from farms as shown for the entire Great Plains Area took place in Texas and Oklahoma where the bulk of the movement to and from farms since 1930 has occurred. In New Mexico, on the other hand, the net movement has reflected a steady trend tothe farms from towns and cities and from farms in other States. 139051 0 — 37----- 3 AN A R E A O P R A P I D L Y C H A N G I N G P O P U L A T I O N Many Settlers Did Not Stay From the time of the earliest settlement there has been much moving about in the region of the Great Plains. The tie which bound the settler to the land was not very strong at best; and unfavorable conditions— droughts, grasshoppers, or personal misfortune— often proved too much for him. So long as he had only a small capital investment, so long as there was another free quarter section of open land beckoning him on, the incentives to remain where he was were few. Experience furnished posterity with the old quip concerning the Homestead Act: ’ ’ The Government wagered a quarter section of land that the settler could not live on it for 5 consecutive years— and the Government frequent ly won." Although it is not possible to measure with complete accuracy the amount of movement, it is clear that a considerable turn over of population has always been characteristic of this area (figures 4-8). Even in modern colonization projects, where settlers are carefully selected and are provided with the best available equipment and techniques, much turnover in personnel is to be expected; and in the settlement of the Great Plains many conditions were definitely against the settler. More than 3,000,000 original homestead entries were filed between 1863 and 1936; but only 58 percent of them were finally completed, 41 percent being canceled or relinquished. The remaining 1 percent were still pending or were otherwise uncompleted early in December 1936.10 Even during the period of settlement, many persons were leaving. In Montana 28,000 original homestead entries were filed between 1920 and 1930, but at the end of the decade there were 24,000 fewer persons living on farms in this State than in 1920. For this same period, Colorado listed 24,000 homestead entries, but the farm population increased by only 13,000. In New Mexico farm population decreased by 5,000 although there were 28,000 homestead entries, and in Wyoming only 5,000 people were added to the farm rolls although homestead entries num bered 37,000. Since it is known that many of the persons who filed on homesteads in these four States from 1920 to 1930 were ^ I n f o r m a t i o n supplied by General Land Office. 29 30 THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES Fig. 4 - N ET MIGRATION OF TO TAL POPULATION IN TH E DROUGHT A R E A 1890-1900 LEGEN D M U C H M IG R A T I O N O U T 0 S L IG H T M IG R A T IO N O U T L I T T L E O R N O N E T M IG R A T I O N ED S L IG H T | -f + | M U C H M IG R A T I O N M IG R A T I O N IN NOTE: R A TES OF n o r t h IN M IG R A T I O N N O T C O M P U T E D IN M O N T A N A , Da k o t a , s o u t h D a k o t a ,W y o m i n g , n e w m e x ic o AN D O KLA H O M A BEC A U SE OF TH E SM A LL N U M BER OF O R G A N IZ E D C O U N T IE S AN AREA OF RAPIDLY CHANGING POPULATION F ig . 31 5 - NET MIGRATION OF TOTAL POPULATION IN TH E DROUGHT A R E A 1900-1910 LE G EN D 0 M UCH M IG R A T I O N O U T S L I G H T M IG R A T I O N O U T A F-2412, W. P. A. L I T T L E O R N O N E T M IG R A T I O N E3 S L IG H T M IG R A T IO N IN |+ +| M U C H M IG R A T I O N IN N O T E : R A T E S O F M IG R A T IO N N O T C O M P U T E D IN M O N T A N A , O K L A H O M A A N D N E W M E X IC O S M A L L N U M B E R O F O R G A N IZ E D B EC A U SE OF TH E C O U N T IE S THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES 32 Fie. 6 - NET MIGRATION OF TOTAL POPULATION IN THE DROUGHT A R E A 1 9 1 0 -1 9 2 0 LE G EN D M U C H M IG R A T IO N O U T S L IG H T M IG R A T I O N O U T L IT T L E O R N O N E T M IG R A T I O N |+ +| S L IG H T M IG R A T I O N IN E3 M UCH M IG R A T I O N IN AN AREA OF REPIDLY CHANGING POPULATION F ig . 33 7 - N E T MIGRATION OF TO TAL POPULATION IN TH E D RO U G H T A R E A 1920-1930 LEGEND M U C H M IG R A T IO N O U T | S L I G H T M IG R A T I O N O U T AF-2416, W. P. A. L IT T L E O R N O N E T M IG R A T IO N E3 S L IG H T E±) MUCH M IG R A T IO N M I G R A T I O N IN IN 34 THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES not newcomers to the farms of the region, there was obviously much shifting about within the area. Yet there was also an in vasion of new settlers on the western edge of the Great Plains as the older settlers were leaving. That many of the early settlers did not remain long where they had first established themselves and that later settlers also showed much instability is demonstrated by a recent study of turnover of farm population in Kansas.11 This study disclosed that out of all the farmers who were living in western Kansas in 1895, two-thirds had moved away within 10 years and only onetenth remained in the same township or had a son living there in 1935. Of the total number of farmers in the area in 1905, only two-fifths still remained at the end of 10 years; the same ratio held also for the 10-year periods beginning in 1915 and in 1920. Farmers who were in western Kansas in 1925 were apparently more settled, as only one-half of them had withdrawn at the end of 10 years. In sample areas in eastern Kansas, the records were carried back to 1860. Two-thirds of the farm operators who were in this part of the State in 1860 had moved away by 1865. Somewhat greater stability was displayed in the succeeding years, as onehalf of those who were there in 1870 still remained in 1875. The two 5-year periods which followed told the same story. Onehalf of the farm operators resident in 1875 were no longer there in 1880; and of the operators there in 1880, one-half had gone by 1885. After 1885, when eastern Kansas had passed beyond the frontier or settlement stage, the changes in residence were somewhat less frequent, 10 years usually elapsing before onehalf of the total number of farm operators recorded at the be ginning of a period had left. There has been some further evi dence of more persistent residence in later years, but even by 1935 only two-thirds of the farm operators present 5 years before still remained in the same township or had a son living there. Results for other parts of Kansas were similar. The author of the study concludes that "in all parts of the State the orig inal or early settlers and their descendents constitute an ex tremely small proportion of the later or contemporary community." In all but one of the areas studied, "8 percent is the highest representation the settlers of 1860 held 75 years later." Movement Since 1930 The continued movement among the farm population of the drought States has not lessened throughout the depression years of 1930 11Malin, James C . , "The Turnover of Farm Population in Kansas," The Kansas Historical 2uarterly, Vol. IV, No. 4, November 1935, pp. 339-372. AN AREA OF RAPIDLY CHANGING POPULATION 35 to 1935 (figure 8). During these years 1,600,000 persons moved from towns and cities to farms in this region, but, on the other hand, 2,000,000 left the farms to go to towns and cities. In addition, approximately 100,000 persons moved from farms in these 10 States to farms in other States.12 In the first years of the depression, however, there was a slowing down of the regular movement from the country to the town. In 1931, for instance, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Colorado, and New Mexico reported more people moving to farms than from farms; in Texas, the same condition obtained in 1932. In spite of these exceptions, however, the net movement was from farms to towns and cities. Nevertheless, nearly 6 percent of the 6,000,000 farm people in the 10 Great Plains States in 1935 did not live on farms in 1930.13 This movement from towns and cities to farms was most pronounced in New Mexico, Wyoming, and Colorado; it was least marked in Texas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. In North and South Dakota fewer than 4 percent of the 1935 farm population had moved to farms after 1930, such persons averaging somewhat more than 200 per county in North Dakota and slightly less than 200 in South Dakota. In New Mexico, however, the number of people who moved to farms after 1930 was 800 per county, and in the cotton-growing sections of the staked plains14 the numbers per county ranged from 500 to 1,000. Substantial numbers of such newcomers were also reported in the irrigated districts, especially along the Arkansas, South Platte, North Platte, Yellowstone, and Milk Rivers. In most of the dry-land farming counties from the Oklahoma Panhandle north to the Canadian line, the Census of Agriculture taken at the beginning of 1935 showed an average per county of 200 to 500 persons who had not been there 5 years previously. The result of these various movements was an increase of farm popu lation in some areas and a decrease in others. Although this movement to farms was comparatively less in the Great Plains States than in the remainder of the country, 25 Great Plains counties reported a relatively heavy migrat ion away from farms, the number of persons moving to farms being equal to one-seventh of the number living on farms in 1930. The proportions of single persons among migrants were greater in the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, and Montana than in any other States in the area or in the remainder of the United States. 12Based on data in the files of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. 13United States Census of Agriculture: 1935, State Bulletins, Second Series, table 2. 14A plateau in western Texas between the Canadian River Valley and midland Texas, extending to eastern New Mexico. THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES 36 F ig .8 - N E T MIGRATION OF FARM POPULATION IN TH E DRO U G HT A R E A 1930-1935 |+ +| S L I G H T M IG R A T I O N IN | -f + | M U C H M IG R A T I O N IN AN AREA OF RAPIDLY CHANGING POPULATION 37 In Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Colorado the pro portions of families among the migrants were comparable to the proportions of families shown as part of similar migrations in other sections of the Nation. In any case, the number of per sons who had left home before 1929 and who had returned during the depression was very small. A recent study in South Dakota yields the information that less than 2 percent of persons leaving home prior to 1929 had returned by 1935. It likewise shows that persons and families who moved to farms came from villages much more frequently than from cities. Although each of the counties included in the study reported that more people moved away than moved in, per sons came into each of these counties from other counties in the State as well as from other States. There was also some movement to the open country from villages and cities.15 From 1930 to 1936 there was also a slowing down of the growth of the total population throughout this area.16 Four of the States, South Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, and New Mexico, lost in total numbers ‘ during these years. North Dakota, Kansas, Wyoming, and Texas each sent more persons to other States than it received in return, but the excess of births over deaths was sufficient to maintain the numbers or to insure them small continued gains in total population. With rates of natural increase substantially above those for the United States as a whole, the Great Plains would have increased its population by 5 to 10 percent between 1930 and 1936 had there been no inward or outward migration; and only an extensive movement from these States to others can account for the decreases in total popu lation in some States as well as for the fact that the reported increases are so small. 15Unpublished tables In the files of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. 16Estimated Population of the United States by Six-Month Periods From Jan uary i, 1930, to July 1, 1936, released by the United States Bureau of the Census, January 21, 1937. COMPARISON OF MIGR A T I O N INTO AND OUT OP TEE AREA Between 1900 and 1910, Kansas and Texas neither gained nor lost as a result of migration, but in Nebraska persons moving away exceeded those moving in.17 The other seven States con tinued to report an excess of incoming settlers. By 1910, how ever, the inward flow had largely ceased throughout the entire area; gains by migration were the exception, and losses attrib utable to this cause were more frequent. Some increases did occur in Montana and Wyoming during this decade under the stim ulus of the World War, but in North Dakota, South Dakota, Ne braska, Kansas, and New Mexico, the tide was moving outward. From 1920 to 1930, only Texas could show an excess of in coming persons, while Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyo ming reported no changes in population resulting from migration. In five States, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Montana, emigration definitely exceeded immigration; and in Montana, the movement was so extensive that there were 11,000 fewer inhabitants in 1930 than there had been 10 years before. Throughout the whole story of western pioneering it has not been uncommon to find the settlers of one locality sending their offspring on to other sections within the next generation; and the 10 Great Plains States are no exception to the general rule. Kansas and Nebraska had ceased to attract migrants in large numbers even before 1900. As a matter of fact, the people who left these two States in the nineties actually outnumbered new arrivals, although there was little resulting change in total populations, the natural increase being sufficient to offset the loss. Undoubtedly, the drought occurring in the early years of this decade played a major part in encouraging emigration, although it may also be that the drought only accentuated the change from a rapidly growing to a relatively stable population which would normally have set in after the first wave of settle ment. Nebraska and Kansas were settled earlier than the other States in this region except Texas, and it is only to be ex pected that they would be first to show a cessation of the rapid rate of growth. During and immediately after the first years of settlement, most of the persons living in the 10 States were, of course, 17Based on comparison of rates of increase as reported by the census and estimated rates of natural Increase. See appendix A for discussion of method. 39 THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES 40 recruited from other parts of the Nation or from foreign coun tries. But as the various States in this area became older, persons born and reared within their boundaries began to re place the earlier settlers who had died or moved away. Since 1900, each successive census of population in Nebraska has re ported a smaller number of persons not native to the State; and the same can be said of Kansas, North Dakota, and South Dakota ftfter 1910 (table 7). Meanwhile, the number of persons born Table 7— MIGRATION TO AND FROM 10 DROUGHT STATES,3 1900 TO 1930 State 1900 1910 Persons Persons Living in Born in State and .State and Bo rn Living Elsewhere El sewhere Persons Persons Living in Born in State and State and Living Bo rn Elsewhere El sewhere Persons Born in State and Living Elsewhere Persons Living in State and Born Elsewhere 1920 1930 Persons Bo rn in State and L'i v i ng Elsewhere Persons Living in State and Born Elsewhere Total 828,670 3,260,203 1,492,038 4,419,804 2,235,164 4,663,072 3,288,884 4,790,378 North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska Kansas 0klahoniab 24,164 43,341 145,280 289,803 31,678 95,788 150,945 424,616 708,336 556,803 47,963 80,479 244,232 427,946 111,240 216,996 254,762 414,056 722,968 1,092,844 100,700 129,431 331,472 567,702 230,930 204,092 247,194 402,676 681,185 1,155,880 175,823 191,719 453,156 728,311 436,424 181,009 233,454 375,937 664,352 1,179,178 Texas Montana Wyomi ng Colorado New Mexico 207,723 14,044 10,660 42,226 19,751 827,855 111,617 55,243 291,196 37,804 404,269 32,850 19,297 89,818 33.944 907,908 177,783 84,269 430,264 117,954 559,552 67,695 32,558 155,866 59,258 968,382 274.877 116,830 492,079 119.877 762,993 126,720 56,634 251,316 105,788 1,129,348 239,482 129,778 512,764 145,076 The number o f p e rs o n s born in each S t a t e and l i v i n g e lse w h e re b o rn e lse w h e re in t h e U n ite d S t a t e s and l i v i n g in each S t a t e . b ir t h was not re p o rt e d a re o m itte d from t h i s t a b le . ^ In c lu d e s p o p u la t io n o f S o u rc e s : in th e U n ite d S t a t e s and the number o f p e r s o n s The sm all number o f p e r s o n s f o r whom S t a t e o f In d ia n T e r r i t o r y f o r 1900. T h ir t e e n t h C e n su s o f the U n ite d ¿ to te s : 1 9 10, P o p u la t io n V o l. I, t a b le 20, p. 700; F o u r te e n t h C e n su s o f the U n ite d S t a t e s : 1920, P o p u la t io n V o l. I I , t a b l e 15, p. 622; and F i f t e e n t h C e n su s o f the U n ite d Sta te s: 1 9 3 0 , P o p u la t io n V o l. I I , t a b le 17, p. 148. in this region and living elsewhere has been steadily increas ing and was greater in 1930 than at any other time. By that year the persons born in Kansas and Nebraska but no longer dom iciled there exceeded the number of residents who had been born elsewhere; and the trend was the same in each of the other eight States. According to the census, 3,000,000 persons who were born in other areas were living in the Great Plains States in 1900; in 1930, the number had become 3,500,000. But whereas these States had contributed only 500,000 of their native born to other parts of the United States in 1900, they contributed 2,000,000 in 1930.18 By the time settlement had been under way for a generation, the Great Plains States were contributing population to other States, both west and east. By 1870, persons born in Kansas were to be found in every State in the Union except Delaware. The largest number had gone to Missouri, while Illinois, Indi ana, Iowa, Nebraska, and Arkansas received most of the others. 18Computed from data in table 7. MIGRATION INTO AND OUT OF THE AREA 41 Nebraska, too, had begun to send its natives to all parts of the country, Missouri, Iowa, and Kansas being the favorite des tinations. When the Dakotas achieved statehood just before 1890, persons who had been born there were to be found in every State in the Union. The number of migrants from this area increased rapidly, es pecially after 1910. All 10 States contributed to the westward movement, and by 1930 all of them had made relatively large contributions to the Pacific Coast States. But in each case there was also much exchange of population with the States to the east which had contributed the largest number of persons. In general, the destinations of migrants from these States were more widely dispersed than the places of origin of incoming migrants. Originally settled as part of the westward movement, the Great Plains have, in turn, contributed to that movement and have more recently contributed also to the urban and east ward movement (figure 9). 42 T H E P E O P L E OF T H E D R O U G H T S T A T E S F ig.9 -NATIVE WHITE M IG RA N TS BO RN IN 10 DROUGHT STATES A N D R E SID IN G E L S E W H E R E 1910 A N D 1930 - Continued COLORADO NEW MEXICO MIGRATION I N T O A N D O UT OF T H E A R E A Fig . 9 -NATIVE WHITE M IG RA N TS BO RN IN 10 DROUGHT STATES AND RESIDING ELSEW H ERE 1910 AND 1930 MONTANA NORTH DAKOTA SOUTH DAKOTA NEBRASKA Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture 139051 0 — 37-----4 INTERSTATE ASPECTS O F RECENT MIGRATIONS With the exception of Texas, the 10 Great Plains States had reached the stage of exporting population by 1920. People with sufficient resources to establish themselves elsewhere, and able to find employment in the new communities of their choice, caused the States receiving them no great concern. But in the recent years of extensive unemployment, their absorption has been more difficult. The information as to volume and direction of recent migra tion is only fragmentary. In California, a count of persons "in need of manual employment," known locally as "tin-can tour ists," was made at all points where important highways enter the State. During the 6 months ending December 15, 1935, it was found that more than 53,000 persons, members of parties "in need of manual employment," had come into California by motor vehicle.19 Former residents of California, returning after resi dence elsewhere, formed approximately 20 percent of the total. Of the people from other areas, nearly one-half, 45 percent, came from the Great Plains. Oklahoma, which •led the other States in the group, contributed 7,000 persons to the movement, while Texas, ranking second, sent only one-half as many. Kan sas added more than 2,000; Nebraska, a similar number; Colorado and New Mexico, over 1,000 each. In this study the State of origin was taken as the State in which the automobile was reg istered; thus, it seems reasonable to suppose that some of the 9,500 persons who entered California in automobiles bearing Washington, Oregon, or Arizona registration plates might have come originally from the Great Plains Area. During the 9i months ending September 30, 1936, an additional 71,000 persons "in need of manual employment" entered California. Of these, 14 percent were in cars bearing California registra tion plates. More than one-half>of the remainder, 54 percent, came from the Great Plains States. Oklahoma, with a contribu tion of 16,500 persons, again headed the list. Texas sent 6,200; Kansas, 2,600; and Colorado, New Mexico, and Nebraska each over 1,500.20 During this period, the average number of these migrants 1Q Taylor, Paul S. and Vasey, Tom, "Drought Refugee and Labor Migration to California, June-December, 1935," Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 42, No. 2, February 1936, pp. 312-318. 20From unpublished reports in the files of the Resettlement Administration. See, also, Rowell, Edward J., "Drought Refugee and Labor Migration to Cali fornia in 1936," Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 43, No. 6, December 1936, PP. 1355-1363. 45 46 THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES per month was less than it had been during the latter half of 1935; but in August and September of 1936, there were notable increases over the numbers reported for the same months of 1935. Most striking are the figures for Oklahoma, which show 3,900 persons for the month ending September 15, 1936, as compared with 1,800 persons for the corresponding month 1 year earlier. But it would be erroneous to assume from these figures that nearly 24,000 former inhabitants of Oklahoma had transferred their residence to California during the 154 months ending Sep tember 30, 1936, for there are no records available on the num bers leaving California. A recently completed study of 467 families that had moved to rural sections of the State of Washington since September 193221 showed that almost 40 percent of the total came from the 10 Great Plains States, with North Dakota, Montana, South Dako ta, and Oklahoma leading. Another 40 percent, approximately, came from the three nearby States of Oregon, California, and Idaho. Undoubtedly some of the persons in this second group, likewise, had come from the Great Plains, but had made interme diate stops on the way. Almost one-fifth of the migrants from drought States were regarded in their adopted communities as having made an unsatisfactory adjustment both economically and socially. Only three-fifths of the families from the drought area were reported as having made a "permanentlf settlement; of the other two-fifths, the majority had shown a high degree of transiency and were reported as unlikely to remain at their present locations. The results of a recent survey in Oregon were similar to those recorded in the Washington study.22 Of the families that moved to rural Oregon between January 1933 and June 1936, 40 percent had come from the Great Plains, the States of Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado contributing the largest numbers. Fortythree percent came from three neighboring States, Washington, Idaho, and California; but some of these, too, had, no doubt, come originally from the Great Plains Area. Movements from the Great Plains to the States on the West Coast are not a phenomenon peculiar to the depression, although the recent migrants may differ radically from those of an ear lier period in their needs and characteristics. Between 1920 and 1930, each of the Great Plains States, except Texas, re ported more persons moving out of the State than moving into it, Landis, Paul H., Rural Immigrants to Washington State, 1932-1936, Agri cultural Experiment Station, Rural Sociology Series In Population, No. 2, Pullman, Washington, July 1936. 2 2 Breithaupt, L. R. and Hoffman, C. S., Preliminary Information Concerning Immigration into Rural Districts in Oregon, January, 1933 to June, 1936, Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station, Circular of Information No. 157, Corvallis, Oregon, August 1936. INTERSTATE ASPECTS OF RECENT MIGRATIONS 47 while each of the West Coast States reported more persons mov ing in than moving out. In 1930, moreover, each West Coast State had in its population a larger proportion of people born in the Great Plains than it had in 1920. Not all the migrants from the Great Plains Area have gone to the milder climates of the Pacific Slope, however. There has also been some movement into Minnesota and Iowa from the more severely affected drought areas, and population shifts from one to another of the Great Plains States themselves have undoubt edly been taking place during more recent years, just as they did between 1920 and 1930. In the study of farm abandonment in Tripp County, South Dakota, records were secured for 144 fami lies that had moved out of the county between 1930 and 1934.23 About one-third had moved across the nearby State line into Nebraska and one-twelfth had gone to Iowa. Most of the others had gone south or west. It has been shown that these predominantly rural States, with relatively high reproduction rates, became "exporters" of population as agriculture in the region became more stabilized and as the early movement toward the frontier abated. Migra tory movements outward, though arrested somewhat during the early part of the depression, were later increased by the drought and possibly also by some prospects of urban employment. But the interstate movement in its various aspects would indicate that drought and economic depression accentuated previously existing trends without radically altering the direction of movement of the twenties. 23H111, George W . , Rural Migration and Farm Abandonment, Research Bulletin, Series II, No. 6, Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, June 1935. SOME FACTORS OP MALADJUSTMENT IN SETTLEMENT Adjustment of Early Settlers Difficult The major force impelling the early settler to migrate to the Great Plains was his desire for a farm. Hence, both the nature of settlement and the extent to which it could become satisfactory and stable were closely related to the development of agriculture as the basic enterprise of the area. Not the least of the settler’ s difficulties lay in the legal restrictions under which he operated. The Homestead Act was based on experience acquired in settling an agricultural area where humidity was uniform and relatively high and where medium sized farms were desirable. But the provisions of this act did not fit conditions which existed west of the 100th meridian. The quarter section originally permitted to the settler was too small either for grazing or for the practice of dry-land farm ing. Later, modifications were made to increase the grant of land per person and to regulate the settlement of desert lands and private irrigation projects, but even these changes proved of little material benefit.24 This process of adjustment not only encouraged migration to other areas, but also, in some cases, involved failure to replace those settlers who moved elsewhere. As long as the migrants from more humid areas remained along the eastern edge of the Great Plains States, the agricultural techniques which they brought with them could be readily ap plied. But as settlement pushed further into the more arid por tions of the region, these techniques required considerable mod ification. The early settlers, those who came from eastern States as well as those who came from Europe, knew only the in tensive moldboard culture. To them, any man who did not turn his soil completely over and pulverize it was slothful. To allow stubble to protrude as it does when the soil is partially turned with a disc harrow or plow was to demonstrate his lazi ness. Wheat seed beds were made almost as carefully as gardens had been made in the place of original residence. Thus, adapta tion to the new environment was necessarily slow and difficult. 24Hlbbard, B. H., A History of the Public Land Policies, New York: Macmillan Company, 1924. See especially chapters XVIII-XX. 49 The THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES 50 The good farmers of the humid areas often found themselves at a disadvantage in the Great Plains insofar as the treatment of the soil was concerned. There were no experiment stations to determine better methods, and the individual farmer was able to improve his efforts only through his own and his neighbors’ experiments. At least one farmers’club in western Kansas had spirited debates concerning the relative advantages of check row planter and lister. The members of this club appear to have favored corn as against wheat, and numerous discussions were held as to the respective merits of the two.25 Acreage Expansion During and After the World War The rapid expansion of wheat culture during and after the World War, especially during the years between 1927 and 1930 when it was stimulated by the post-war export trade, is direct ly related to maladjustments of population which have become apparent in recent years. Between 1910 and 1914, the number of acres in wheat in the Great Plains increased by approximately one-third. Another gain of one-third was reported between 1914 and 1918, and by 1921 a peak was reached at 39,899,000 acres. For several years thereafter, wheat acreage was somewhat less; but in 1928 the earlier peak was exceeded by 2,500,000 acres. During 1929 and 1930, the number of acres thus employed rose to 44,500,000, which was 12 percent more than in 1921. Montana may be taken as a specific example of the general expansion in wheat growing. As settlers moved into this State, the number of acres used for wheat production grew from 435,000 in 1910 to 1,655,000 in 1914. By 1918 it had reached 3,400,000, and by 1920 it was 3,680,000. This was the largest wheat acre age ever harvested there, and during the following 6 years there were some decreases. In 1927, however, a new high was reached with 4,200,000 acres; and in 1929 this level was sur passed when 4,419,000 acres, the largest number ever reported, were harvested. This was nearly 25 percent above the war-time peak. Since 1929, changes in acreage harvested have been some what erratic; but in 1933 and 1935, 3,500,000 acres of wheat were harvested, more than at any time during the World War. Montana's population increased rapidly during the first great expansion in wheat production which took place between 1910 and 1920. The wheat-growing counties with promises of high profits were obviously attractive to migrants. But the advent of power farming lessened the demand for human labor, and the MaiIn, James C., "The Adaptation of the Agricultural System to Sub-humid Environment," Agricultural Bistory, Vol. 10» No. 3, July 1936, pp. 118141. SOME FACTORS OF MALADJUSTMENT IN SETTLEMENT 51 population trend definitely changed. The acreage increases, which occurred between 1920 and 1930, saw a general exodus from the wheat-growing and other rural sections of the State; and the farm population, instead of gaining, lost 24,000 persons. During 1928, 1929, and 1930, when changes in wheat acreage were most pronounced, the changes in number of persons on farms were slight, although there were some fluctuations in number of farm families. While the number of persons living on farms in the Great Plains Area remained nearly the same between 1910 and 1935, the number of farms increased. During the World War decade, 1910-1920, the increase was 177,000, or 15 percent. In Montana an exceptional gain occurred; the total, more than doubling, jumped from 26,000 to 58,000. South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and New Mexico, contrary to the general trend, reported slight decreases. From 1920 to 1930, the area as a whole gained in number of farms even more rapidly than it had during the War years. Except in Colorado where there was virtually no change and in Montana where there was a drop from 58,000 to 47,000, each Stat'e reported an increase. Between 1930 and 1935 the number of farms continued to increase, both in the area as a whole and in each of the individual States. Gains in farm acreage were likewise marked from 1910 to 1935. From 1910 to 1920, Montana reported the number of acres in farms nearly trebled, while each of the other nine States showed gains varying in degree. From 1920 to 1930 and from 1930 to 1935, still further expansion in farm acreage was reported. As the inadequacy of the 160- and 320-acre farms became more and more apparent throughout the Great Plains, and as the de velopment of power farming made it possible for the operator to utilize a greater acreage, the average size of farms increased (table 8) and the number of large farms multiplied more rapidly Table 8— AVERAGE SIZE OF FARMS IN 10 DROUGHT STATES, 1870 TO 1935 Average Acres in Farms State 1870 North Dakotal South Dakota/ Nebraska Kansas Oklahoma Texas Montana Wyoming Colorado New Mexico 176 169 148 a 1900 1910 1920 1930 1935 { 271 1 203 157 155 a 277 227 190 181 a 343 362 246 241 a 382 335 298 244 152 466 464 339 275 166 496 439 345 283 166 462 445 349 275 166 208 267 272 259 125 225 351 586 281 177 357 886 1,333 384 417 269 517 778 293 316 262 608 750 408 818 252 940 1,469 482 982 275 940 1,610 471 832 301 164 25 184 186 aNot a v a ila b le . Source: H f U t n t h Census of th• Ifn iU d S t a U s.- 1890 1880 1930. Agriculture Vol. IV, table 12. p. 53. THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES 52 than the number of small farms. Between 1910 and 1935, the number of farms of 1,000 acres or over increased eight times as much as the number of all farms. In 1910, only 2.5 percent of all farms in this entire area included 1,000 acres or more; in 1920, 3.7 percent of all farms were of that size. By 1935 there had been a further increase to 4.6 percent. Recent Migration in Areas of Acute Distress Recent migrants from towns and cities to farms in the 10 Great Plains States went to areas of greatest distress less frequently than to other areas. It was shown in the first bul letin of this series, Areas of Intense Drought Distress, 19301936, that the average amount of Federal aid per capita may be taken as a measure of the extent of distress; counties receiv ing $175 per capita or more were most severely affected, and those receiving less than $58 per capita were least affected. In those counties in which Federal aid amounted to $175 per capita or more, only 4.3 percent of the 1935 farm population had not been living on a farm 5 years previously. But in those counties in which it was less than $58 per capita, the percent age of the 1935 farm population not on farms 5 years previously was 8.2, nearly double the figure for the most seriously af fected counties (table 9). During the period 1930-1935, there were, in addition, decreases in the farm population in some of the areas which suffered most from the drought and increases in others which suffered less. Table 9— CHANGES IN FARM POPULATION, 1930 TO 1935, BY AMOUNT OF FEDERAL AID PER CAPITA Amount of Federal Aid per Capita, 1933-1936 Number of Count i e's Fersons Not on Farms in 1930 Farm Population 1930 1935 Increase or Decrease in Numbers Percent Increase or Dec rease Number Percent of 1935 Farm Population Total 803 5,745,713 5,703,623 -42,090 -0.7 348,510 6.1 Less than $58 $ 58- $ 84 84- 119 119- 175 175 and over 179 190 149 148 137 1,593,428 1,653,916 1,086,048 863,368 548,953 1,663,055 1,653,992 1,043,070 819,398 524,108 69,627 76 -42,978 -43,970 -24,845 4.4 -4.0 -5.1 -4.5 136,880 99,327 51,682 38,246 22,375 8.2 6.0 5.0 4.. 7 4.3 S o u rces: U n ite d S t a t e s C e n su s o f A g r i c u l t u r e : 1935, and C ro n in , F. D. and Be e rs, H. W ., A re as o f In t e n s e D rou gh t D i s t r e s s , 1 9 3 0 -1 9 3 0 , R e se a rc h B u l le t in , S e r i e s V., No. I, D i v i s i o n o f S o c ia l R e se a rc h , W orks P r o g r e s s Admini s t r a t i o n . There had been more migration before 1930 than from 1930 to 1935 into those sections of Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, and Texas which were most acutely affected by the droughts between .1933 and 1936. In Texas, the 27 counties with the highest per capita aid reported an increase of 151 percent of their total population between 1920 and 1930, whereas the 12 counties with the lowest grants and benefits gained only 35 percent, less than one-fourth as much. In the latter group of counties, the SOME FACTORS OF MALADJUSTMENT IN SETTLEMENT 53 increases came primarily in villages and cities; in the former, they were more marked in the open country. Similarly in Montana, where the decreases in farms and rural population between 1920 and 1930 were so great that they more than offset the slight gains in urban areas, the nine counties later reporting the smallest amount of Federal aid had a loss of 8 percent in total population, while the seven counties with the largest amount of relief gained 2 percent. In the first instance, the open country population decreased by 15 percent and in the second, by 1 percent. On the other hand, examples might be cited to show population increases during the twenties in areas where later grants and benefits were small and popu lation decreases where later amounts of aid were large. These facts only emphasize that the migration before 1930 was not always directed toward the best adjustment of natural resources and population and that more recent migrations from farms in the Great Plains States as well as from their villages and cities must be considered with this in view. CONCLUSIONS Continued study of the Great Plains Drought Area makes it increasingly evident that recent droughts are not solely re sponsible for the present distress. The return of normal rain fall would not insure prosperity. The nature of the climate, the character of the soil, and the extent of soil destruction which has attended the abuse of natural resources necessitate certain readjustments between the people and the land. It is often assumed that partial evacuation is a necessary part of any adequate plan of rehabilitation for the area. The report of the Study of Population Redistribution26 concluded that, although 36,000 families had moved out of the region since 1930, nearly 59,000 of those remaining were surplus population. At the present time, however, settlement techniques have not been perfected to such a stage that the resettlement of 59,000 families could be readily effected. Public opinion, arising from two sources, would probably resist any policy of evacuation. On the one hand, such a program would receive little support within the area itself. Dry years were known before 1934, and many people think that what has been borne can be borne again. Moreover, earlier agricultural successes are vividly recalled, with a common disregard for the fact that a fortuitous combina tion of virgin soil, favorable climatic conditions, and high prices was responsible. On the other hand, evacuation of the Great Plains might arouse antagonism in areas scheduled to receive the families. Migrants with sufficient funds to establish themselves in a new locality are still cordially received. But few areas are left today which welcome the individual whose major qualifications are willing hands and a strong back. In attempting to visualize the future of population in the -Great Plains Drought Area, two generalizations may be made. First, no governmental agency, State or Federal, will sponsor a program calling for the evacuation of a large number of fam ilies. Second, industrial development is not to be expected within the calculable future, and any rehabilitation of the distressed families in the area must, necessarily, be based upon agriculture. 26Goodrich, Carter and Others, op. c i t . 55 56 THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES Relief, rehabilitation, and work agencies may continue to meet the most urgent human needs and to assist their clients to become self-supporting. Such activities will undoubtedly prevent much aimless and expensive migration. On the other hand, they may reduce migration from those sections from which partial evacuation should be encouraged. Even with an extensive program of public assistance, many families will leave to seek better prospects, just as others in the area have done from the time of earliest settlement. A well equipped and widely used informational service might be of considerable- benefit to such migrating families. A service of this type would probably reduce the volume and extent of that portion of the migration which is based on rumor, misin formation, or on mere hunches, and, at the same time, it might lead migrants more directly to locations where satisfactory adjustments would be possible. It might also reduce the tragic mistakes which frequently occur when settlers, relocating under unknown conditions, become victims of unscrupulous land spec ulators or dealers. The alternating migrations into and out of the Great Plains in the past have been described. Periods of resettlement have followed periods of abandonment. Unless some far-reaching changes in attitude and policy toward land ownership and land use occur, a new wave of immigrants may come in to take the places of those who have recently left. Cheap land and the prospects for speculative gain are almost certain to attract new settlers. Even the most distressed portions of the area reported some migrants to farms between 1930 and 1935. Some future difficulties may be prevented if the lands which have recently reverted to public ownership are held for uses to which they are best adapted. Moreover, restrictions upon the uti lization of privately owned lands, as through zoning, might eliminate much of the waste which now results from futile at tempts to defy the forces of nature. Furthermore, the transfer of selected tracts to public ownership might assist in pre venting the recurrence of those errors which have been so nu merous in the history of the region. The shifting of publicly or privately owned land from agri culture to grazing would tend to reduce the resident population, for it would either displace persons or prevent the replacement of those who had left. A number of proposals have been made which would probably offset such decreases. Irrigation, where feasible, might be employed to provide resettlement of a small part of the existing population. Again, more effective com binations of land along rivers with land farther away would serve to rearrange the present population pattern rather than to increase or decrease the total numbers. The various attempts to conserve available water and soil resources might reduce CONCLUSIONS 57 the necessity for sudden dislocations of large numbers of people and might tend to stabilize the population of the area. Unless there is prolonged economic distress, a decrease of migration from these States may be expected. The population of the entire country is rapidly approaching stability in num bers because of the declining birth rate and the virtual cessa tion of immigration. While these relatively youthful agricul tural States are still contributing more than their share of the children of the country, it seems possible that their birth rates will decline more rapidly than those of the rest of the Nation. The results will be an increase in the proportion of older people and a decrease in the proportion of persons in the young adult age groups which provide most of the migrants. In these respects, it seems likely that the population of the Great Plains Area will become similar to that of the remainder of the country. Kansas and Nebraska, the older States of this group, already give evidence of this tendency. Other conditions being equal, the result will probably be a decrease in the number of migrants and an increase in the stability of residence. Stability of residence itself is not necessarily a desirable goal, but the high degree of mobility which has been charac teristic of the Great Plains Area indicates an unsatisfactory adjustment between man and his natural environment. Emigration as a technique for making adjustments is relatively ineffi cient for it provides little assurance of betterment to the individual and rarely strikes at the basis of the maladjustments involved. A high degree of mobility in a population impedes the proper functioning of those social institutions which are essential to a satisfactory farm life. Any successful program to adapt agriculture to the available natural resources would tend to reduce the volume of migration to and from the area. The success or failure of the efforts to control erosion and conserve available resources will be measured ultimately by the welfare of the people of the Great Plains Drought Area. Unless a satisfactory farm life can be developed on the basis of the resources of that region, no amount of modification of the physical environment will be worth while. Appendix A C O N ST R U C T IO N OF MAPS SHOWING MIGRATION 139051 0 —37----- 5 CONSTRUCTION OF MAPS SHOWING MIGRATION The balance of migration to or from the drought area is shown in figures 4 to 8. In preparing the basic data, it was assumed that the rate of natural increase for each county in a State is the same as the rate for the State as a whole. The natural in crease in a county for a decade is expressed as a percent of the population present at the beginningof the 10-year period. Coun ties were classified by the extent of migration according to the following scheme: When the rate of population The county is classified change is equal to the as showing Rate of natural increase -4.9 to Rate of natural increase -5.0 to -14.9 +4.9 Little or no net migration Slight migration out Rate of natural Increase -15.0 or more Much migration out Rate of natural increase +5.0 to +14.9 Rate of natural Increase +15.0 or more Much migration in Slight migration in Rates of natural increase for 1920 to 1930 were taken from estimates of the National Resources Committee; rates for the other decades were estimated according to ratios of children under 5 to women 20-44 years of age as computed from the census. If NI represents natural increase and C-W, the ratio of children to women, the relationships used may be expressed as follows: ^ ( 19 1 0 - 1 9 2 0 ) _ 1920 ) ( 1920— 1 9 3 0 ) 1930) ^ Changes in population due to changes in boundaries have been eliminated by combining adjacent counties which changed bound aries at some time during the period under discussion. In order to avoid the necessity of combining the counties of a State into groups too few in number to be of value for this analysis, certain States were omitted in the early years for which no satisfactory groupings could be secured. These States were growing at a rapid rate, but their populations were small. For Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas, the rates were com puted back to 1890; for North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming, 61 THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES 62 back to 1900; and for all the States in the Great Plains, from 1910 to 1920 and from 1920 to 1930. No correction has been made for the relocation of the 100th meridian, March 17, 1930, when the boundary line between Texas and Oklahoma was moved. It is apparent that "much migration out" does not in all instances imply an actual decrease in the population of the area. The highest rate of natural increase was 33 percent (Oklahoma,1900-1910). A total increase of 28-37 percent would have been classified as "little or no net migration," 18-27 per cent as "slight migration out," less than 18 percent as "much migration out." The lowest rate of natural increase was 11 percent (Montana, 1920-1930). An increase of 16-25 percent was considered as "much migration in" and one of 6-15 as "little or no net migration." The extent to which "much migration out" represents decreases in the population is shown in table A.1 Table A— NUMBER OF COUNTIES IN THE DROUGHT AREA WITH MUCH MIGRATION OUT AND WITH AN ACTUAL DECREASE IN POPULATION, 1890 TO 1930 Number of Counties 1900 to 1910 1890 to 1900 State Much Mi g rat i on Out Total Minnesota Iowa Mi ssouri North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska Kansas Oklahoma Texas Montana Wyoming Colorado New Mexico 174 Actual Much Decrease Migration i n PopuOut 1at ion 104 _ 1910 to 1920 Actual Much Decrease Migration in Popu Out lation Actual Dec rease in Popu lation 177 381 269 353 278 21 43 14 3 3 3 11 9 19 31 3 11 9 8 15 12 13 10 23 -31 12 13 10 14 17 46 57 45 124 4 33 57 27 80 4 42 34 47 79 21 41 34 26 67 15 2 13 17 2 10 10 13 15 13 7 14 8 - - - - 55 65 35 52 31 37 21 33 - - - - 48 - 13 - 85 - 33 - - _ 2 - 2 - 1 5 - 1 5 1 1 Much Mi g rat i on Out 252 21 44 14 4 10 1 2 1 1920 to 1930 Actual Decrease in Popu lation This procedure may seem to overstate migration into a region and to understate migration out of it. As a general rule, the crude rate of natural increase is higher than the State average in rural areas and lower in urban areas. If the rate of natu ral increase in a county is higher than the average for the State, the effect will be to underestimate the extent of emi gration or to exaggerate the extent of immigration as regards that county. The limits for the groups showing "much migration" in or out are set in such a way that the errors in classifying 1For data by counties on increases in population sine« 1920» see appendix B. CONSTRUCTION OF MAPS SHOWING MIGRATION 63 a county in one or the other of these groups is reduced to a minimum. Inasmuch as each of the Great Plains States, with but one exception, has more than 60 percent of its population in rural areas and inasmuch as the composition of the population in each State is relatively homogeneous, the classification of counties in one or the other of the two extreme groups appar ently approximates a true portrayal of the migration which occurred. The fact that this method relates the natural in crease to place of residence rather than to place of birth or death is an added advantage. Appendix B COUNTY DATA COUNTY DATA Table B lists the counties included in the drought area delimited in figures 1, 2, and 4-8. It shows percent increases or decreases in total population from 1920 to 1930, in farm population from 1930 to 1935, and in farms from 1930 to 1935. 67 THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES 68 T a b le B— POPULATION AND NUMBER OF FARMS IN 803 COUNTIES GREAT PLA IN S REGION, State and County Total Populat ion 1930 Percent Increase or Dec rease From 1920 IN THE 1920 TO 1935 Farm Populat ion 1935 Percent Increase or Decrease From 1930 Number of Farms 1935 Percent Increase or Decrease From 1930 MINNESOTA Total 2,356,165 7.6 838,047 4.2 183,340 10.4 Ai tken Anoka Becker Bel trami Benton 15,009 18,415 22,503 20,707 15,056 -0.2 17.8 -1.5 -23.5 7.0 13,032 7,641 14,820 10,643 8,663 19.0 14.9 8.2 16.0 3-0 3,012 1,763 3,227 2,440 1,680 22.1 21.0 17.9 17.1 5.6 Big Stone Blue Earth Brown Carl ton Carver 9,838 33,847 23,428 21,232 16,936 0.7 7.5 4.5 9.5 -0.1 5,206 14,290 10,026 11,431 10,464 -2.8 -2.5 -1.9 14.9 3-9 1,154 3,129 2,116 2,594 2,153 2.5 0.5 0.5 25.3 5.5 Cass Ch i ppewa Ch i sago Cl ay Clearwater 15,591 15,762 13,189 9,546 -1.9 0.3 -8.7 6.2 11.4 11,139 8,169 8,863 10,513 7,852 21.1 -6.7 1.8 1.5 11.3 2,546 1,687 2,183 2,207 1,919 26.7 -2.5 7.9 5.7 27.9 Cottonwood Crow Wing Dakota Doug 1as Fari bault 14,782 25,627 34,592 18,813 21,642 1.5 4.3 19.4 -1.2 3.1 9,601 9,939 10,956 12,105 12,043 -0.6 30.7 -2.4 -0.2 -2.7 1,997 2,201 2,315 2,879 2,581 2.5 29.8 2.8 9.6 4.1 F reebo rn Grant Hennepin Hubbard 1santi 28,741 9,558 517,785 9,596 12,081 16.4 -2.3 24.6 -5.3 -9.0 14,494 6,546 20,636 7,060 9,285 -1.6 -0.5 12.7 19.1 5.7 3,126 1,425 4,701 1,682 2,168 1.2 3.5 18.1 29.0 6.8 1tasca Jackson Kanabec Kandiyohi Ki ttson 27,224 15,863 8,558 23,574 9,688 14.0 -0.6 -5.8 6.9 -8.9 12,434 10,805 7,415 12,350 6,882 22.2 -1.8 11.1 -3-3 2.2 2,803 2,303 1,727 2,645 1,481 23-0 2.6 12.5 4.0 10.2 Koochiching Lac qul Parle Lake of the Woods Le Sueur Li ncol n 14,078 15,398 4,194 17,990 11,303 4.1 -1.0 0.7 0.3 5,736 9,956 3,359 9,973 7,492 21.0 -5.4 31.1 4.2 -5.6 1,438 2,141 966 2,249 1,602 12.5 1.5 3.4 5.1 1.5 Lyon McLeod Mahnomen Marshal 1 Mart i n 19,326 20,522 6,153 17,003 22,401 2.6 0.4 -0.7 -12.5 6.2 9,608 11,825 4,316 13,051 11,989 -4.8 -2.3 13.8 5.2 -5.5 2,026 2,550 841 2,971 2,505 1.7 1.9 23.5 18.5 -2.2 Meeker Mi 11e Lacs Morn son Murray Nicol let 17,914 14,076 25,442 13,902 16,550 -1.0 -0.7 -1.5 2.0 10.1 12,132 9,671 17,848 10,196 7,640 -0.9 8.8 6.9 -0.9 * 2,547 2,313 3,591 2,110 1,566 2.7 14.2 10.2 3-5 6-3 Nobles Norman Otter Tai 1 Pennington Pine 18,618 14,061 51,006 10,487 20,264 3.9 -5.5 0.4 -13.3 -4.0 10,376 9,809 33,617 5,960 15,949 -3.1 0.9 0.6 14.4 9.2 2,191 2,068 7,284 3,814 3.4 6.3 8.7 18.2 16.0 12,238 36,019 13,085 286,721 6,887 1.6 -2.9 -4.0 17.2 -5.2 6,084 20,766 8,533 5,580 4,704 -3.1 1.4 -1.1 6.6 0.5 1,313 4,729 1,905 1,254 981 4.6 12.5 8.1 16.8 10.1 20,620 23,645 29,974 10,962 12,621 -1.4 * 5.9 * -5.1 12,992 15,231 11,126 6,515 10,195 -1.0 -1.2 -0.5 -3-8 11.3 2,728 3,184 2,432 1,382 2,287 3-1 * 3.1 3.3 19.0 Pi pestone Polk Pope Ramsey Red Lake Redwood Renvi11e Rice Rock Roseau 23,120 - 1,300 COUNTY DATA Table B— POPULATION AND NUMBER OF FARMS GREAT P L A I N S REGION, 69 IN 803 C OU N TI E S IN THE 1920 TO 193 5 — Co nt i nued Percent Increase or Decrease From 1930 Percent Increase or Decrease From 1930 Total Populat ion 1930 Percent Increase or Decrease From 1920 204,596 14,116 9,709 15,865 62,121 -0.9 -0 .9 0.6 1.5 11.4 33.127 8,019 5,999 10,915 27,707 41.0 1.0 4.7 -0.6 2.0 7,919 1,679 1,355 2,334 4,896 62.5 6.5 11.6 5.4 5.2 Steele Stevens Swi ft Todd Traverse 18,475 10,185 14,735 26,170 7,938 2.3 4.2 -2.4 0.4 -0.1 9,477 6,249 8,945 18,255 5,090 2.2 -1.7 -i.5 1.8 -2.1 2,090 1,361 1,890 3,900 1,171 8.6 5.3 2.5 5.3 5.6 Wadena Waseca Washington Watonwan Wilkin 10,990 14,412 24,753 12,802 9,791 2.7 2.0 4.2 2.8 -3 .9 7,555 7,986 9,117 7,299 5,967 8.6 -2.7 4.6 1.2 1.4 1,703 1,704 2,181 1,536 1,278 21.2 1.5 11.1 3-8 6.7 Wright Yel low Medicine 27,119 16,625 -5.5 0.5 18,399 10,359 1.6 -7.4 4,019 2,212 7.3 0.1 State and County Farm Population 1935 Number of Farms 1935 MINNESOTA— Continued St. Louis Scott Sherburne Si bl ey Stearns IOWA 1,448,178 3-1 586,600 -2.0 133,457 3.1 Adai r Adams Appanoose Audubon Boone 13,891 10,437 24,835 12,264 29,271 -2.6 -0.8 -18.7 -2.0 -2.1 8,637 6,838 9,694 7,977 10,557 -4.5 -4.6 8.6 -0 .8 -3.1 2,182 1,637 2,304 1,879 2,567 3-5 0.4 8.3 3.1 0.8 Buena V ista Calhoun Carrol 1 Cass Cerra Gordo 18,667 17,605’ 22,326 19,422 38,476 0.6 -1.0 3-6 * 11.0 9,599 9,459 10,661 9,126 9,738 2.1 -2.4 -4.3 -3-9 2.2 2,179 2,174 2,152 2,243 2,048 4.2 * -3 .2 2.0 2.2 Cherokee Clarke Cl ay Crawford Dal 1as 18,737 10,384 16,107 21,028 25,493 5.5 -1-2 2.9 2.0 1.5 8,950 6,037 8,204 11,681 10,398 -1.3 -4.4 -3.9 -3.3 -2.8 1,903 1,556 1,790 2,595 2,468 3-8 2.7 -0.6 1.5 3-4 Decatur Dickinson Emmet Frankl in Fremont 14,903 10,982 12,856 16,382 15,533 -10.0 7.2 1.8 3-6 0.6 8,444 5,692 5,869 9,693 8,312 -1.6 0.3 -3.2 -2.8 -7.7 2,088 1,290 1,315 2,154 1,871 6.0 5.4 2.3 3.5 -2.6 Greene Guthrie Hamilton Hancock Hard i n 16,528 17,324 20,978 14,802 22,947 0.4 -1 .5 7.4 0.5 -1 .7 9,408 9,901 10,006 9,494 9,599 -0.6 -2.3 -4.2 -0.1 -6.3 2,127 2,524 2,263 2,035 2,239 3.2 6.1 2.3 5.1 2.8 Harrison Humboldt Ida Jasper Kossuth 24,897 11,933 32,936 25,452 1.7 1.9 2.1 18.2 1.5 12,914 7,030 6,517 13,467 15,519 -3 .3 -2.4 -7 .0 -0.8 -2.2 2,942 1.533 1.453 3.125 3,153 -0.6 3-9 2.0 2-3 Lucas Lyon Madison Marion Marshal 1 15,114 15,293 14,331 25,727 33,727 -3-6 -0.9 -4 .6 3.1 3.4 7,249 9,454 8,929 10,429 10,921 3.5 0.8 -0 .8 -3 .5 0.4 1,730 1,885 2,238 2,476 2,401 8.5 3.6 4.0 2.6 2.1 M i ll s Monona Monroe Montgomery O'Bri en 15,866 18,213 15,010 16,752 18,409 2.9 6.4 -36.0 -1 .7 -3-4 7,265 10,264 7,549 6,997 9,064 -5.2 -7.7 -0 .2 -2.2 -2.3 1.663 2,182 1,768 1,677 2,006 1.4 0.6 4-3 3.8 2.1 Total 13,202 3.3 THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES 70 T a b le B— POPULATION AND NUMBER OF FARMS IN 803 COUNTIES IN THE GREAT PLA INS REGION, 1920 TO 1935— Cont i nued State and County Total Population 1930 Percent Increase or Decrease From 1920 Farm Populat ion 1935 Percent Increase or Decrease From 1930 Number of Farms 1935 Percent Increase or Dec rease From 1930 IOWA— Cont i nued Osceola Page Palo Alto Plymouth Pocahontas Polk Pottawattarnie Ringgold Sac Shelby Sioux Story Taylor Union Warren Wayne Webster Wi nnebago Woodbu ry Worth Wright 10,182 25,904 15,398 24,159 15,687 -0.4 7.3 -0.6 2.4 0.5 6,428 9,339 9,339 13,516 9,711 -0.1 -2.8 3.0 -3-4 0.2 1,317 2,299 1,947 2,881 2,094 3-1 5.4 3.4 3-7 0.4 172,837 69,888 11,966 17,641 17,131 12.2 13.5 -7.4 0.8 6.6 14,265 18,206 7,886 9,158 10,180 4.1 -5 .9 0.5 -0.8 -5.4 3,351 4,205 2,033 1,995 2,186 7.0 3.2 4.8 6.5 -0.1 26,806 31,141 14,859 17,435 17,700 1.3 18.9 -4.2 1.0 -1.9 15,237 10,429 8,839 6,428 10,467 -1.4 -3.6 -0.2 -0 .8 -3-7 3,037 2,403 2,295 1,662 2,623 3-3 2.3 5.4 2.2 4.0 13.787 40,425 13.143 101,669 11,164 20,216 -10.3 7.5 -2.6 10.3 -4.0 -0.6 7,614 11,843 8,366 15,617 6,883 9,307 3-5 -0.3 2.7 -2.6 -2.6 -4.9 1,938 2,799 1,753 3,334 1,491 1,999 4.0 6.1 6.8 3-3 1.3 0.8 MISSOURI Total 279,624 -4.8 124,750 0.2 31,728 3.9 Andrew Atchi son Buchanan Daviess De Kalb 13.469 13.421 98,633 14,424 10,270 -4.3 3-2 5.3 -13.3 -12.2 9,054 8,207 10,382 9,592 7,554 -0.9 -2.7 3.7 -0.8 4.5 2,324 1,674 2,479 2,746 2,040 3-8 3.8 5.3 9.4 6.9 Gent ry Grundy Harri son Holt Mercer 14,348 16,135 17,233 12,720 9,,350 -8.2 -8.1 -12.6 -9.7 -17.1 7,873 7,391 11,567 7,728 7,069 -6 .0 4.9 -2 .3 1.9 3.0 2,056 2,040 3,032 1,812 1,865 -3.6 13.3 -1.7 6.7 2.0 Nodaway Putnam Sul 1 i van Worth 26,371 11,503 15,212 6,535 -4.9 -12.3 -14.4 -14.5 14,748 8,521 10,170 4,894 -0.7 3-3 -3.5 6.0 3,614 2,239 2,600 1,207 5.1 7.9 -1.6 -0.2 NORTH DAKOTA Total 385,614 -3.0 84,606 8.5 Adams Barnes Benson Bi 11i ngs Bott i neau 6,343 18,804 13,327 3,140 14,853 13-4 0.7 1.8 0.4 -1.7 3,859 10,-287 9,076 2,936 9,521 -8.4 -2.1 -1.1 2.4 -4.4 970 2,331 2,133 597 2,371 4.4 12.0 20.4 12.4 9.5 Bowman Bu rke Burleigh Cass Caval ier 5,119 9,998 19,769 48,735 14,554 7.4 5.1 26.9 17.5 -6.4 3,091 6,027 6,423 12,939 '9,885 -7.1 -6.1 0.1 -5.3 -3.6 765 1,438 1,406 2,640 2,151 -6.1 7.2 5.1 1.7 9.2 Di ckey Divide Dunn Eddy Emmons 10,877 9,636 9,566 6,346 12,467 3.6 * 8.4 -2.3 10.4 6,462 6,551 8,039 3,324 9,122 -4.2 -9.6 3-2 -7.1 -0 .2 1,432 1,576 1,564 731 1,578 5.4 7.4 11.2 4.1 2.6 Foster Golden V a l1ey Grand Forks Grant G riggs 6,353 4,122 31,956 10,134 6,889 4.0 -14.7 11.0 6.1 -6.9 3,391 2,429 10,151 7,500 4,437 -7.1 -2.9 -6.1 -7.7 -7.7 818 590 2,431 1,502 1,078 14.1 680,845 5.31 3.3 18.0 -0.6 14.6 71 COUNTY DATA Tab le B— POP.U LAT I ON AND NUMBER OF FARMS GREAT P L A I N S State and County Total Popu1at i on 1930 REGION, IN 803 CO U N TI E S IN THE 1920 TO 193 5 — Co n t i nued Percent Increase or Decrease From 1920 Farm Population 1935 Percent Increase or Decrease From 1930 Number of Farms 1935 Percent Increase or Dec rease From 1930 NORTH DAKOTA— Continued Hett i nger Kidder La Moure Logan McHen ry 8,796 8,031 11,517 8,089 15,439 14.5 3-0 -0.4 4.7 -0.7 6,295 5,535 7,719 6,128 10,480 2.2 -7.8 * -0.8 0.4 1,235 1,140 1,729 1,134 2,242 13.6 -2.1 13-7 5.5 4.6 McIntosh McKenzie McLean Mercer Morton 9,621 9,709 17,991 9,516 19,647 6.8 1.7 4.2 15.7 5.0 6,328 8,085 12,289 6,581 10,165 -0.6 4.1 0.3 5.4 0.1 1,160 1,931 2,642 1,204 1,960 5.4 11.1 10.6 16.9 5.9 Mountrai1 Nel son 01 i ver Pembi na Pierce 13,544 10,203 4,262 14,757 9,074 11.6 -1.5 -3.7 -2 .8 -2.3 9,132 6,257 3,764 9,197 6,723 -7.4 -6.7 0.5 0.4 3.2 2,213 1,375 745 2,140 1,259 5.5 5.9 4.9 17.6 9.1 Ramsey Ransom Renvi11e Ri chi and Rolette 16,252 10,983 7,263 21,008 10,760 5.3 -5.5 -6.6 0.6 6.9 7,250 6,511 4,680 12,406 8,210 -7.3 -2.3 -9.4 -1.2 17.4 1,718 1,431 1,274 2,656 1,618 16.9 3.8 10.5 8.2 23-3 Sargent Sheridan Sioux Slope Stark 9,298 7,373 4,687 4,150 15,340 -3-7 -7.1 41.7 -16.0 13-3 6,081 5,791 3,762 3,063 7,738 -6.0 0.8 5.6 -5.6 -1.8 1,467 1,147 757 753 1,390 8.3 5.9 10.0 2.2 4.0 Steele Stutsman Towner Trai 11 Walsh 6,972 26,100 8,393 12,600 20,047 -5 .8 6.2 0.8 3.2 5.1 4,897 11,580 4,629 6,859 11,987 -6-3 -9.1 -15.6 -7.3 -3.7 1,090 2,792 1,267 1,557 2,631 9.8 12.8 17.3 8.5 6.0 Ward Wei 1s Wi11 iams 33,597 13,285 19,553 16.6 2.5 8.7 12,107 7,942 9,993 -1.9 -4.8 -6.9 2,784 1,670 2,393 4.6 4.6 4.6 SOUTH DAKOTA Total 692,849 8.8 358,204 -8.2 83,303 0.2 Armst rong Au ro ra Beadle Bennett Bon Homme 80 7,139 22,917 4,590 11,737 _ -1.5 18.9 138.6 -1.7 22 4,509 7,835 3,217 6,793 -69.4 -13-0 -17, 7 -24.7 -6.6 8 1,152 1,882 783 1,499 -20.0 1.1 -9.4 -5.8 0.5 Brook i ngs Brown Brul e Buffalo Butte 16,847 31,458 7,416 1,931 8,589 4.5 6.6 3-9 12.6 26.0 8,986 10,334 4,086 1,292 4,970 -6.8 -5.4 -11.8 -19.1 -0.2 2,047 2,479 984 304 967 2.8 7.1 -5.7 -2.3 -1.5 Campbel 1 Charles Mix Cl ark Cl ay Codington 5,629 16,703 11,022 10,088 17,457 6.1 2.7 -1.0 4.5 5.5 4,214 10,262 6,635 5,908 5,571 -2.9 -9.8 -15.6 -5.8 -3.8 865 2,2 53 1,684 1,311 1,300 7.2 0.5 -2.1 -0.1 4.4 Corson Custer Davi son Day Deuel 9,535 5,353 16,821 14,606 8,732 31-5 37.0 19.0 -3.9 -0.3 6,663 2,658 4,432 8,846 6,064 -5.6 -1.4 -10.6 -5.7 -3.1 1,464 645 1,031 2,082 1,355 -5.1 2.5 1.4 5.3 4.6 6,476 7,236 8,712 8,741 6,895 34.9 3-5 4.5 25.1 7.0 3,506 4,800 5,741 3,248 3,860 -12.8 -4.9 -1.2 -0.8 -11.1 777 1,046 1,271 873 977 -10.7 1.8 7.9 6.3 -0.1 Dewey Doug 1as Edmunds Fall River Faul k 72 THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES T a b le B— POPULATION AND NUMBER OF FARMS IN 803 COUNTIES GREAT PLA IN S REGION, State and County Total Population 1930 IN THE 1920 TO 1935— Cont i nued Percent 1ncrease or Dec rease From 1920 Percent Increase or Decrease From 1930 Farm Populat ion 1935 Number of Farms 1935 Percent Increase or Dec rease From 1930 SOUTH DAKOTA— Continued Grant Gregory HaakonHaml i n Hand 10,729 11,420 4,679 8,299 9,485 -1.4 -10.1 1.8 3.0 8.1 6,298 6,979 3,094 5,109 6,217 -5.4 -10.0 -5.7 -8.5 -13.1 1,442 1,590 846 1,179 1,576 3.8 -3.3 5.6 0.3 -6.7 Hanson Hardi ng Hughes Hutchi nson Hyde Jackson 6,131 3,589 7,009 13,904 3,690 2,636 -1.1 -9.2 22.7 3-2 11.3 6.6 4,187 2,950 2,164 8,625 2,335 1,489 -8.5 -6.3 -14.5 -2.4 -8.9 -10.5 930 738 547 1,805 581 393 0.2 -4.4 -7.3 3-0 -8.4 * Jerauld Jones Ki ngsbury Lake Lawrence Li ncoln 5,816 3,177 12,805 12,379 13,920 13,918 -8.2 5.8 * 1.0 6.8 0.2 3,268 1,963 6,853 6,352 2,166 8,164 -13.1 -11.0 -14.3 -3-2 6.2 -6.9 800 507 1,625 1,437 490 1,876 -6.4 -4.3 -3-2 6.3 19.2 1.9 Lyman McCook McPherson Marshal I Meade Mel lette 6,335 10,316 8,774 9,540 11,482 5,293 -3 .9 3.3 13.9 -0.6 22.6 37.5 4,121 6,446 6,187 6,095 7,178 3,456 -12.4 -4.9 -2.4 -2.9 -9.5 -16.9 1,049 1,427 1,243 1,392 1,756 820 -8.4 -1.5 6.1 7.2 -3.5 -4.1 Mi ner Mi nnehaha Moody Penn i ngtonPerkins Potter 8,376 50,872 9,603 20,079 8,717 5,762 -2 .1 19.7 -1.4 57.9 9.1 31.5 5,261 11,370 6,048 5,315 6,087 2,865 -7 .9 -5.6 -4.7 -10.0 -8.6 -15.1 1,229 2,498 1,358 1,311 1,461 713 -2.5 3.1 -1.1 0.6 -2.7 -1.9 Roberts San bo rn Shannon Spink Stanley Sully 15,782 7,326 4,058 15,304 2,381 3,852 -4.4 -7 .0 102.6 -3-0 -18.1 36.1 10,416 4,266 3,048 7,470 1,437 2,474 -7.1 -14.0 -3-8 -14.3 -12.1 -16.7 2,394 1,067 654 2,025 416 672 4.5 -3-2 12.2 1.6 1.2 -0.1 Todd Tripp Turner Un ion Wal worth Washabaugh 5,898 12,712 14,891 11,480 8,791 2,474 111.9 6.2 0.1 3.4 4.1 112.2 4,347 7,585 9,147 7,237 3,495 2,158 -4 .5 -18.0 -4.6 -2.6 -6.1 -3.7 892 1,879 2,078 1,550 755 518 -1.0 -8.7 4.6 0.2 6.6 -6.0 Wash i ngton Yankton Zi ebach 1,827 16,589 4,039 20.1 8.9 8.6 1,637 7,373 3,020 # -4.1 -14.2 364 1,648 733 15.6 2.0 -8.7 NEBRASKA Total 1,377,963 6-3 580,694 Adams Antelope Arthur Banner B1 ai ne 26,275 15,206 1,344 1,676 1,584 16.2 -0.2 -4.8 16.8 -10.9 7,055 10,013 1,098 1,613 1,389 Boone Box Butte Boyd Brown Buffalo 14,738 11,861 7,169 5,772 24,338 4.2 41.1 - 13.0 -14.5 2.3 Bu rt Butler Cass Cedar Chase 13,062 14,410 17,684 16,427 5,484 4.0 -1.3 -1.9 1.2 11.0 -0.9 133-, 616 3-2 -2.7 -0.2 -7.2 4.7 9.8 1,759 2,184 230 383 291 2.6 1.4 -3-4 12.0 4.7 9,194 3,752 4,735 3,613 10,752 -3.7 -4.9 -0.8 11.2 0.6 2,037 932 1,114 797 2,585 2.6 2.0 6.3 12.9 6.4 7,285 8,717 8,532 10,679 3,610 -3-1 -1-3 -0.4 -2.1 5.0 1,602 1,968 2,051 2,283 779 2.1 4.5 -0.4 4.1 1.7 ■ COUNTY DATA Table B— POPULATION AND NUMBER OF FARMS GREAT P L A I N S State and County Total Population 1930 RE GION, 73 IN 803 C OU N TI E S IN THE 1920 TO 193 5— Co nt i nued Percent 1ncrease or Dec rease From 1920 Farm Populat i on 1935 Percent Increase or Decrease From 1930 Number of Farms 1935 Percent 1ncrease or Decrease From 1930 NEBRASKA— Cont i nued Cherry Cheyenne Cl ay Col fax Cumi ng 10,8,98 10,187 13,571 11,434 14,327 -7.3 21.2 -6.3 -1.6 4.1 6,763 5,451 6,968 6,230 9,240 -6.4 7.5 -4.0 0.9 -3-4 1,450 1,321 1,781 1,462 1,936 -2.0 18.4 -0.1 5.0 -0.4 Custer Dakota Dawes Dawson Deuel 26,189 9,505 11,493 17,875 3,992 -0.8 23.5 13.1 11.7 21.6 16,719 3,945 3,984 9,274 2,218 -4.3 -4.2 1.7 1.6 -2.7 3,842 846 886 2,123 544 2.9 0.2 1.8 1.8 8.8 Di xon Dodge Douglas Dundy Fi 11mo re 11,586 25,273 232,982 5,610 12,971 -1.9 8.9 13-9 15.2 -5.1 6,835 8,168 8,189 3,546 7,761 -5.8 -3-8 1.0 -2.5 0.6 1,527 1,921 1,851 736 1,930 -0.2 2.3 -1.7 3-8 3.1 Frankl i n Front i er Furnas Gage Garden 9,094 8,114 12,140 30,242 5,099 -9.7 -5 .0 4.1 1.8 11.5 5,845 5,657 6,299 12,675 3,382 4.0 -2.1 -1.5 0.6 -3-7 1,421 1,401 1,589 2,997 765 1.6 2.5 2.6 3-4 7.7 G arfield Gosper Grant Greel ey Hall 3,207 4,287 1,427 8,442 27,117 -8.3 -8 .2 -4 .0 -2.8 14.3 2,161 3,569 672 5,452 6,698 8.9 -0.6 -4.5 -4 .7 -1.7 499 869 115 1,157 1,658 12.1 2.7 -5 .0 -1.4 1.8 Hami1ton Harl an Hayes Hi tchcock Holt 12,159 8,957 3,603 7,269 16,509 -8.1 -2.9 8-3 20.2 -3.7 7,430 5,351 2,784 4,038 11,139 -2.7 * -10.5 -3 .8 1.8 ■ 1,831 662 950 2,471 3.7 3.4 2.5 0.8 2.5 Hooker Howard Jefferson Johnson Kearney 1,180 10,020 16,409 9,157 8,094 -14.4 -6.7 1.7 2.4 -5.7 636 6,910 7,793 5,524 4,981 2.4 2.1 2.0 -0.7 -2.3 158 1,624 1,936 1,334 1,222 9.7 4.6 12.8 2.4 -2.2 Kei th Keyapaha Kimbal1 Knox Lancaster 6,721 3,203 4,675 19,110 100,324 27.0 -10.9 3.9 1.1 16.8 3,583 2,557 2,280 12,164 14,246 -1-3 -5.1 -3 -2 -3.5 4.4 807 571 631 2,704 3,328 3-6 -0.9 5.2 2.7 5.0 Li ncoln Logan Loup McPherson Mad i son 25,627 2,014 1,818 1,358 26,037 9.4 26.2 -6.6 -19.7 15.7 9,882 1,363 1,591 1,317 8,839 0.1 -0.4 3.7 9.7 -2.5 2,262 295 331 319 2,010 3-3 2.4 4.4 16.0 1.2 Merri ck M orri11 Nance Nemaha Nuckol1s 10,619 9,950 8,718 12,356 12,629 -1,3 8.7 0.1 -1.5 -4.6 6,089 5,681 5,653 7,075 6,631 2.0 -1.2 -0.2 6.7 0.2 1,402 1,127 1,216 1,577 1,610 0.9 4.3 1.6 4.4 1.4 Otoe Pawnee Perki ns Phelps Pierce 19,901 9,423 5,834 9,261 11,080 2.1 -1.6 47.1 -6.5 3-7 9,226 5,775 4,004 4,744 7,263 -4.1 -3.9 3.5 -0.9 -1.7 2,252 1,404 958 1,210 1,651 -1.2 -0.4 -7.4 1.2 3.1 Platte Polk Redwi11ow Richardson Rock 21,181 10,092 13,859 19,826 3,366 8.8 -5.8 21.2 4.5 -9.1 11,377 6,584 5,271 9,409 2,725 1-3 -0.1 0.2 -0.8 13-8 2,323 1,541 1,229 2,081 610 6.9 2.3 3-4 6.0 14.9 Sali ne 16,356 -1 .0 8,476 1.7 2,188 4.8 1,300 THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES 74 T a b le 8— POPULATION AND NUMBER OF FARMS IN 803 COUNTIES GREAT PLAINS REGION, State and County Total Popul at ion 1930 IN THE 1920 TO 1935— Cont i nued Percent Increase or Decrease From 1920 Farm Population 1935 Percent Increase or Decrease From 1930 Number of Farms 1935 Percent Increase or Decrease From 1930 NEBRASKA— Cont i nued Sarpy Saunders Scotts Bluff Seward 10,402 20,167 28,644 15,938 11.0 -2.0 38-3 0.4 5,097 11,640 11,519 9,885 8.4 -1.2 -2.5 3.1 Sheridan Sherman Sioux Stanton Thayer 10,793 9,122 4,667 7,809 . 13,684 12.1 2.8 3-1 0.7 -2.1 5,754 6,307 3,604 5,521 7,840 -6.2 -2.7 -9.9 -4.5 4.0 1,444 818 1,249 1,833 1.3 -1.5 4.2 2.0 7.0 Thomas Thurston Val 1ey Wash i ngton Wayne 1,510 10,462 9,533 12,095 10,566 -14.8 9.1 -3.0 -0.7 8.6 971 6,264 5,723 7,001 6,571 22.3 -3.0 -3.4 -5.1 -3.1 219 1,289 1,371 1,637 1,523 25.9 4.5 5.5 1.6 2.8 Webster Wheel er York 10,210 2.335 17,239 -6.5 -7.7 0.5 6,117 2,138 8,613 -3.2 -4.1 1,568 436 2,010 2.1 17.5 0.6 13.0 1,153 2,790 1,977 2,232 1,320 8.6 3-4 10.3 4.7 KANSAS Total 1,880,999 6.3 703,743 -0.5 174,589 5.1 Allen Anderson Atch i son Barber Barton Bourbon 21,391 13,355 23,945 10,178 19,776 22,386 -9.0 2.8 2.3 4.5 7-3 -3*5 7,818 7,235 7,586 4,649 7,903 9,111 -4.8 -6.6 -1.9 -2 .8 -0.5 -0.3 2,166 1,907 1,887 1,102 1,758 2,418 10.6 -0.4 7.5 4.3 3.8 10.9 Brown Butler Chase Chautauqua Cherokee Cheyenne 20,553 35,904 6,952 10,352 31,457 6,948 -1 .9 -18.1 -2.7 -10.7 -6.4 24.4 9,765 11,239 3,716 5,426 11,212 5,095 -4.6 -3.3 -1.7 6.9 14.6 4.7 2,294 2,738 917 1,311 2,671 1,143 4.1 3.0 9.3 6.5 22.9 4.8 Cl ark Cl ay Cl oud Coffey Comanche Cowl ey 4,796 14,556 18,006 13,653 5,238 40,903 -3 .9 1.3 1.6 -4.2 -1.2 16.3 2,492 7,752 8,271 8,692 2,529 11,675 2.8 -1.6 -1.3 1.4 -3.3 -0.3 615 2,070 2,190 2,364 575 2,946 8.3 7.5 5.5 8.9 12.3 1.8 Crawford Decatur Dickinson Doniphan Douglas Edwards 49,329 8,866 25,870 14,063 25,143 7,295 -20.2 9.2 0.4 4.7 4.8 3-4 11,774 5,693 10,551 7,990 8,526 3,265 6.4 0.2 -1.2 -8.7 5.2 -4.1 2,897 1,414 2,565 1,739 2,209 829 11.9 5.5 0.9 1.9 19.3 0.7 Elk Ell is El 1sworth Fi nney Ford Franklin 9,210 15,907 10,132 11,014 20,647 22,024 1.9 12.5 -2.4 43.5 44.7 0.4 5,007 7,836 4,842 4,512 5,514 9,265 1.5 -2.5 -4 .8 0.6 -5.3 -1.0 1,308 1,343 1,181 1,029 1,407 2,526 5.2 2.2 1.9 6.0 5.2 5.8 Geary Gove Graham Grant Gray Greeley 14,366 5,643 7,772 3,092 6,211 1,712 6.8 18.9 1.9 184.5 66.5 3.416 4,264 5,705 1,875 3,657 1,096 -1.4 10.0 -2.3 10.2 -4.2 6-3 773 911 1,296 466 935 311 0.5 2.4 0.8 -12.6 12.9 10.3 Greenwood Hami1ton Harper Harvey Haskel 1 Hodgeman 19,235 3,328 12,823 22,120 2,805 4,157 30.7 28.7 -6.1 6.6 92.8 11.3 8,671 2,006 6,481 7,386 1,526 3,244 -0.1 18.6 -1.4 -1.1 -12.9 9.2 2,137 529 1,642 1,720 429 790 12.2 20.2 5.1 -1 .5 -6.9 7.9 31.8 COUNTY DATA Table B— POPULATION AND NUMBER OF FARMS GREAT P L A I N S State and County Total Populat ion 1930 REGION, 75 IN 803 C O U N TI E S IN THE 1920 TO 193 5— Co n t i nued Percent 1ncrease, or Dec rease From 1920 Farm Population 1935 Percent Increase or Decrease From 1930 Number of Farms 1935 Percent Increase or Decrease From 1930 KANSAS— Cont i nued Jackson Jefferson Jewel 1 Johnson Kearny Ki ngman 14,776 14,129 14,462 27,179 3,196 11,674 -4.6 -4.2 -10.9 48.4 22.1 -3.7 9,676 9,059 9,698 11,275 2,055 6,826 -3.5 2.6 -5.3 16.6 7.1 0.9 2,588 2,286 2,601 2,830 516 1,638 5.8 5.5 1.1 19.1 11.7 5.9 Kiowa Labette Lane Leavenworth Li ncoln Linn 6,035 31,346 3,372 42,673 9,707 13,534 -2.1 -7.9 18.4 11.1 -1.9 -2.0 3,174 10,619 2,102 9,459 5,758 8,765 -7.4 3.6 -3.4 10.5 -8.8 -1-3 730 2,698 554 2,260 1,427 2,372 -5.4 8.0 13-3 12..9 -0.6 7.0 Logan Lyon McPherson Marion Marshal 1 Meade 4,145 29,240 23,588 20,739 23,056 6,858 28.6 11.8 8.0 -9.5 1.4 23.7 2,557 10,490 11,387 11,025 11,749 3,599 10.5 -2.6 -1.7 2.4 -3.6 -2.7 601 2,623 2,563 2,527 2,918 883 11.1 0.5 -4.7 2.7 2.3 -5.4 Mi ami Mi tch el1 Montgomery Morri s Morton Nemaha 21,243 12,774 51,411 11,859 4,092 18,342 7.2 -8.0 3-6 -1.2 28.8 -0.8 9,444 6,684 11,113 6,556 1,843 10,902 2.6 -1.8 7.3 -2.8 -2.5 -3.3 2,520 1,699 2,750 1,622 475 2,468 10.4 -0.6 9.0 3-2 20.9 -0.1 Neosho Ness Norton Osage Osborne Ottawa 22,665 8,358 11,701 17,538 11,568 9,819 -5.6 11.6 2.4 -5.8 -7.0 -8.4 9,165 4,929 6,614 10,115 6,544 5,700 3-9 -3.8 -3.6 -1.6 -5.7 -3-4 2,3H 1,218 1,688 2,702 1,692 1,631 7.2 9.9 -1.0 3.7 2.4 0.9 Pawnee P h illip s Pottawatomie Pratt Rawl i ns Reno 10,510 12,159 15,862 13,312 7,362 47,785 12.7 -2.8 -1.8 3-1 8.3 7.6 4,590 7,873 9,193 4,738 4,996 13,526 -5.2 -0.9 -0.7 -8.2 -1 .5 -2.1 1,164 2,074 2,282 1,168 1,143 3,140 -2.3 4.8 6.5 1.7 -2.8 0.1 Republ i c Ri ce Ri ley Rooks Rush Russel 1 14,745 13,800 19,882 9,534 9,093 11,045 -7.0 -7.0 -3*7 -4.3 8.8 2.8 9,035 5,845 6,547 5,455 5,475 5,889 -3.2 -4 .5 -3.1 -6.4 * -1.6 2,357 1,447 1,625 1,402 1,188 1,357 2.8 1.4 3-6 0.8 1.2 1.0 Sali ne Scott Sedgwi ck Seward Shawnee Sheri dan 29,337 3,976 136,330 8,075 85,200 6,038 16.9 27.4 47.8 29.8 23-2 10.1 6,839 1,987 16,095 2,201 10,111 4,449 -4.6 -2.0 6.6 -7.9 0.7 -2 .7 1,862 552 3,865 560 2,460 1,050 1.3 15.2 9.8 4.1 13.2 0.1 Sherman Smi th Stafford Stanton St evens Sumner 7,400 13,545 10,460 2,152 4,655 28,960 32.3 -9.6 -9.5 137.0 18.1 -0.9 3,275 8,557 5,647 1,459 .2,471 12,069 -2.3 -8.0 -3.0 8.3 -16.7 -4.5 839 2,323 1,317 411 612 3,097 4.4 1.0 -3.1 30.5 -3-5 4.9 Thomas Trego Wabaunsee Wal1ace Washington Wichita 7,334 6,470 10,830 2,882 17,112 2,579 32.9 10.0 -5.2 18.9 -4.8 39.0 3,773 4,354 7,084 1,711 11,528 1,646 4.0 -6 .7 -2.4 -3-4 -1.4 2.2 1,000 963 1,770 440 2,830 419 6.4 -1.7 8.7 7-3 1.3 12.3 Wi 1son Woodson Wyandotte 18,646 8,526 141,211 -11.9 -5.1 15.5 8,149 5,059 6,967 6.6 0.2 12.4 2,020 1,325 1,678 9.5 11.3 12.2 138051 0 — 37------6 76 THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES T a b le B— POPULATION AND NUMBER OF FARMS IN 803 COUNTIES GREAT P LA IN S REGION, State and County IN THE 1920 TO 1935— Cont i nued Total Populat ion 1930 Percent Increase or Dec rease From 1920 Farm Population 1935 Percent Increase or Decrease From 1930 Number of Farms 1935 Percent Increase or Dec rease From 1930 OKLAHOMA Total 2,396,040 18.1 1,015,562 -0.8 213,325 4.6 Adai r A1 f a lfa Atoka Beaver Beckham 14,756 15,228 14,533 11,452 28,991 7.7 -6.3' -30.3 -18.5 52.7 11,673 8,731 11,703 7,836 13,619 13.4 -4.3 13.5 -9.3 -14.4 2,409 2,164 2,348 2,080 3,135 35.4 -7.0 26.2 1.6 -3-9 Blaine Bryan Caddo Canad i an Carter 20,452 32,277 50,779 28,115 41,419 28.8 -20.7 48.4 26.1 2.9 12,143 20,590 27,963 12,745 13,703 -3.1 4.0 -13.8 -13.7 14.2 2,709 4,132 5,579 2,704 2,808 5.5 9.7 -6.4 -8.7 27.9 Cherokee Choctaw Cima rron Cl eveland Coal 17,470 24,142 5,408 24,948 11,521 -12.1 -24.9 57.4 28.7 -37.4 13,779 17,194 3,109 10,701 8,363 4.1 9.9 -10.5 0.1 12.5 2,793 3,472 975 2,221 1,769 15.0 9.9 9.9 10.4 25.1 Comanche Cotton Craig Creek Custer 34,317 15,442 18,052 64,115 27,517 28.9 -7.4 -5.8 2.6 46.9 13,648 9,752 10,535 19,394 12,528 -6.2 -7.3 4.9 5.5 -11.6 2,826 2,052 2,482 3,782 2,747 -3.0 0.3 11.9 6.4 -8 .1 Del aware Dewey Ell is G arfield Garvi n 15,370 13,250 10,541 45,588 31,401 10.8 6.6 -9.7 21.6 -3.2 13,068 9,789 6,843 12,359 19,440 4.3 * -3.8 1.7 -1.0 2,711 2,280 1,720 3,056 3,824 10.2 0.4 2.1 -12.1 5.9 Grady Grant Greer Harmon Harper 47,638 14,150 20,282 13,834 7,761 40.3 -12.0 28.1 22.8 1.8 23,347 9,524 9,565 8,345 4,684 -12.2 -1.8 -19.2 -16.5 -9.3 4,812 2,609 1,985 1,667 1,150 -1.6 -5.4 -19.1 -7.3 -4.5 Haskel1 Hughe's Jackson Jefferson Johnston 16,216 30,334 28,910 17,392 13,082 -16.4 16.5 -1 .5 -35.0 12,093 15,411 12,907 10,140 8,732 1.2 0.8 -18.0 -4.3 2.4 2,433 3,004 2,594 1,994 1,795 9.7 0.4 -9 .0 -0.1 17.6 Kay Ki ngf i sher K i owa Latimer Le Flore 50,186 15,960 29,630 11,184 42,896 43.8 1.8 28.3 -19.3 0.3 12,412 11,081 15,048 7,030 26,083 9.2 4.9 -17.5 9.3 9.8 2,997 2,623 3,090 1,386 4,971 5.2 7.3 -12.5 13.5 14.0 Li ncoln Logan Love McClain McCurtai n 33,738 27,761 9,639 21,575 34,759 1.0 0.8 -22.5 11.6 -8.3 21,372 12,367 8,371 14,804 25,055 -5.0 -1.3 15.9 -5.3 15.6 4,478 2,681 1,759 2,872 5,092 1.7 -5.4 8.2 -4 .7 20.6 McIntosh Major Marshal 1 Mayes Murray 24,924 12,206 11,026 17,883 12,410 -5.6 -1 .8 -24.9 6.3 -5.4 19,127 9,357 7,532 13,511 5,744 1.8 3.4 3.2 8.2 3.0 3,410 2,131 1,476 2,810 1,165 -3.0 1.8 9.7 10.6 14.4 Muskogee Nob) e Nowata Okfuskee Oklahoma 66,424 15,139 13,611 29,016 221,738 7.6 11.6 -14.4 15.8 90.6 23,428 8,019 7,014 17,900 18,455 -1.4 3.2 -5.0 0.2 11 . i 4,480 1,977 1,605 3,520 4,001 -0.2 -5.9 5.4 -0.7 28.6 Okmulgee Osage Ottawa Pawnee Payne 56,558 47,334 38,542 19,882 36,905 2.7 29.6 -6.2 4.0 22.3 18,021 13,312 9,179 9,349 13,936 5.5 8.4 3.7 -0 .8 -0.5 3,534 2,644 1,999 2,269 3,034 4.3 12.3 10.4 -0.9 3-6 30.6 77 COUNTY DATA Tab le B— POPULATION AND NUMBER OF FARMS GREAT State and County PLAINS Total Population 1930 REGI ON , IN 803 CO U N TI E S IN THE 1920 TO 1935— C o n t i n u e d Percent Increase or Decrease From 1920 Farm Population 1935 Percent Increase or Decrease From 1930 Percent Increase or Decrease From 1930 Number of Farms 1935 OKLAHOMA— Continued Pittsburg Pontotoc Pottawatomie Pushmataha Roger M i ll s 50,778 32.469 66,572 14,744 14,164 -3.4 4.9 44.6 -15.8 33.1 20,341 16,226 20,935 10,391 10,029 4.8 8.0 -4.6 17.1 -10.9 4,291 3,038 4,378 2,253 2,326 15.5 13.7 16.4 26.4 -1.1 Rogers Seminole Sequoyah Stephens Texas 18,956 79,621 19,505 33.069 14,100 7.7 234.4 -27.2 33.9 0.9 12,032 17,105 16,225 15,084 7,065 12.9 -28.0 11.6 -4.2 -11.8 2,634 3,117 , 3,151 3,023 2,135 22.3 11.3 13.8 3.5 5.7 24,390 187,574 22,428 27,777 29,435 17,005 15,844 8.7 72.0 4.9 2.9 32.4 6.7 8.1 13,612 16,547 15,711 7,024 17,870 8,125 7,777 -4.4 34.7 -3.1 14.1 -15.6 0.6 -2.9 2,420 3.119 3.252 1,559 3,859 2,112 1.833 Ti 1lman Tul sa Wagoner Washington Washi ta Woods Woodward -12.4 25.3 3.1 40.8 -14.4 4.0 2.7 TEXAS 1,208,468 51.9 . 436,429 -4.1 97,076 3-3 Andrews Archer Armst rong Bai 1ey Baylor 736 9,684 3,329 5,186 7,418 110.3 84.3 18.2 903.1 5.6 412 3.345 1,854 3,994 4,642 -7.4 7.6 -11.4 -4.6 8.4 85 744 456 903 920 13.3 7.5 -3-4 19.1 6.1 Borden Brewster Bri scoe Cal lahan Carson 1,505 6,624 5,590 12,785 7,745 56.0 37.4 89.6 7.9 151.6 1,265 898 2,695 7,218 2,065 -11.0 -26.3 -25.3 1.1 -10.1 301 241 699 1,623 614 3-1 -16.0 2.9 11.9 13.3 Cast ro Chi 1dress Clay Cochran Coke 4,720 16,044 14,545 1,963 5,253 142.3 46.7 -13.8 2,829.9 15.3 3,224 6,277 9,355 2,109 3.470 -6.9 -19.3 -2.7 48.9 -8.6 1,068 1,334 1,978 456 876 42.2 -1.0 -6.1 60.0 4.5 Coleman Col 1 ingsworth Concho Cottle Crane 23.669 14,461 7,645 9,395 2,221 25.9 58.0 30.8 36.1 5,902.7 11,517 8,568 4.312 4,781 444 -13.8 -12.9 -22.5 -22.5 982.9 2,373 1,817 891 1,177 106 -8.1 -14.0 -21.6 12.4 715.4 Crockett Crosby Culberson Dal 1am Dawson 2,590 11,023 1,228 7,830 13.573 72.7 81.2 34.6 72.9 215.0 1.033 6,524 114 2,315 8,072 84.5 -14.2 -15.6 -4.8 -15.3 184 1,389 58 709 1,946 37.3 -20.1 11.5 7.4 -1-2.3 Deaf Smith Di ckens Donley Eastland Ector 5,979 8,601 10,262 34,156 3,958 59.6 46.4 27.7 -41.6 420.8 2,769 5,175 5,114 10,997 379 -8.8 -14.1 -19.6 19.7 0.5 1,085 1,062 1,140 2,420 102 131.597 13.563 12,409 6,315 2,800 29.2 23.2 27.2 33.0 175.0 11,227 9,585 6,865 3,814 2,040 21.8 -3.1 -8.1 0.3 1.8 1,548 1,828 1,743 830 459 22.6 -12.5 4.3 15.3 12.8 5,586 1,263 22,090 20,189 16,966 31-3 127.6 373.7 99.8 52.3 2,874 760 3,985 7,760 7,272 -11.9 -4.2 32.7 -9.3 -23.8 608 169 1,109 1,859 1,521 -23.6 35.2 58.2 7.5 -17.1 Total El Paso Fi sher Floyd Foard Gaines Ga rza Glasscock Gray Hale Hall . 72.2 -13.5 -16.4 21.6 47.8 78 THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES T a b le B— POPULATION AND NUMBER OF FARMS IN 803 COUNTIES GREAT PLA IN S REGION, State and County Total Populat i on 1930 IN THE 1920 TO 1935— Con t i rued Percent Increase or Decrease From 1920 Farm Populat ion 1935 Percent Increase or Dec rease From 1930 Number of Farms 1935 Percent Increase or Decrease From 1930 TEXAS— Conti nued 3,548 14,532 2,185 16,669 4,637 162.0 16.4 97.0 17.4 8.3 1,414 7,199 1,379 11,038 1,905 Hockl ey Howard Hudspeth Hutchi nson 1rion 9,298 22,888 3,728 14,848 2,049 6,686.9 228.8 287.5 1,959.4 27.3 7,044 5,082 943 784 777 Jack Jeff Davis Jones Kent King 9,046 1,800 24,233 3.851 1,193 -8.3 24.6 8.6 15.5 82.1 Knox Lamb Li pscomb Loving Lubbock 11,368 17,452 4,512 195 39,104 Lynn Mart i n Midland Mi tchel1 Montague 0.1 * 12.8 -6.1 9.3 1.4 96.2 1.7 -3.1 4.7 -10.7 -57.4 -1.8 4.6 1,482 1,034 159 184 176 10.3 -13.4 -18.0 14.3 10.0 5,926 547 13,483 2,860 812 11.1 12.1 -3.7 -3.1 -15.5 1,490 110 2,810 619 163 28.3 11.1 0.2 5.3 2.5 23.0 1,385.3 22.5 137.8 252.4 7,374 11,191 2,483 46 11,720 -0.4 -0.8 9.1 206.7 -7.3 1,268 2,340 647 17 2,652 - 13.2 -1.7 12,372 5,785 8,005 14,183 19,159 160.4 404.8 226.9 88.4 -13.7 8,724 3,646 2,112 6,411 12,279 -4.9 -12.7 17.0 -12.2 14.8 2,001 805 520 1,348 2,649 -6.4 3-7 44.0 -9.0 12.2 Moore Motl ey Nolan Och i 11 ree Oldham 1,555 6,812 19,323 5,224 1,404 172.3 65.9 77.8 124.1 98.0 597 3,220 5,413 1,994 634 -18.0 -26.2 -9.7 -12.5 10.6 287 619 1.133 685 220 64.9 -32.0 -1.8 18.1 60.6 Parmer Pecos Potter Presi dio Randal 1 5,869 7,812 46,080 10,154 7,071 245.4 102.5 175.8 -16.8 92.4 3,847 1,789 1,637 3,375 2,981 -8 .0 -2. 1 8.6 21.6 1.1 901 374 396 756 813 10.1 -2.9 Reagan Reeves Roberts Runnels Schlei cher 3,028 6,407 1,457 21,821 3.166 703.2 43.8 -0.8 27.8 71.0 251 1,648 517 11,494 1,572 -14.6 -3-3 -1.0 -9.4 0.3 90 376 175 2,337 341 23.3 15.0 10.8 -8.1 13.7 Scurry Shackelford Sherman Stephens Sterl ing 12,188 6,695 2,314 16,560 1,431 35.4 35.0 57.1 7.5 35.9 6,807 2,372 993 3.731 513 -9.2 0.3 -12.0 10.7 -14.6 1,603 498 412 856 121 2.5 7.8 38.3 11.9 -11.0 Stonewal1 Sutton Swi sher Taylor Terrel 1 5,667 2,807 7,343 41,023 2,660 38.7 75.7 67.3 70.4 66.8 4,498 790 4,107 10,133 682 1.1 23.4 -0.1 -4.5 23.1 1,052 168 1,042 2,112 128 24.6 9.1 2.1 -5.4 -9.2 Terry Throckmorton Tom Green Upton Ward 5,253 36,033 5,968 4,599 297.3 46.4 136.9 2,258.9 75.9 6,812 2,797 6,384 361 1,095 2.6 -3-7 10.4 70.3 -24.9 1,486 745 1,523 100 230 1.9 21.9 23.4 177.8 -24.1 Wheeler Wichita Wi 1barger Winkler Yoakum Young 15,555 74,416 24,579 6,784 1,263 20,128 110.3 2.1 62.6 8,275.3 150.6 50.4 8,284 8,146 9,502 316 1,123 7,716 -2.1 1.6 -6.8 a -3-4 10.8 1,793 1,773 1,699 68 240 1,801 -20.6 142.9 0.4 18.5 CD CD - 13.8 470 1,408 518 2,421 401 00 VO Hansford Hardeman Hartl ey Haskel 1 Hemphi11 23.2 112.5 6.3 23.0 42.1 -3.6 10.3 23.8 COUNTY DATA Tab le B— POPULATION GREAT State and County AND NUMBER OF FARMS PLAINS Total Populat ion 1930 REGI ON , 79 IN 803 C OU N TI E S IN THE 1920 TO 193 5— Co n t i n ued Percent Increase or Decrease From 1920 Farm Populat i on 1935 Percent Increase or Decrease From 1930 Number of Farms 1935 Percent Increase or Decrease From 1930 MONTANA Tota) 537,554 -2.1 195,262 -4.6 50,564 6.5 Beaverhead Big Horn B1 ai ne Broadwater Carbon 6,654 8,543 9,006 2,738 12,571 -9.7 21.8 -0.6 -15.5 -17.7 2,272 4,973 5,721 1,245 5,660 -21.6 -8.8 3.2 -15.8 -3.9 551 1,163 1,401 337 1,216 -5.2 7 .i 8.8 2.7 3-9 Carter Cascade Chouteau Custer Daniels 4,136 41,146 8,635 11,242 5,553 4.1 5.9 -21.9 -7.8 - 3,251 5,825 5,531 2,682 3,120 -6.6 -7.7 -5.4 -8.9 -17.4 909 1,478 1,690 750 904 7.2 5.3 6.5 4.9 -0.2 Dawson Deer Lodge Fai 1on Fergus FI at head 9,881 16,293 4,568 16,531 19,200 6.9 6.3 0.4 -41.7 -11.5 4,026 829 2,725 7,630 6,272 -10.7 5.1 -5.9 -7.7 6.6 1,017 177 694 1,999 1,489 -0.1 24.6 6.8 -3.6 10.4 Gal 1at i n G arfield G lacier Golden Val 1ey Grani te 16,124 4,252 5,297 2,126 3,013 1.6 -20.8 26.8 -27.7 5,784 3,482 2,166 1,301 993 -3-4 -7.8 -6 .3 -17.1 -2.4 1,381 1,062 668 348 247 3-4 -1.4 46.8 -10.1 * H ill Jefferson Judith Basin Lake Lewis and Cl ark 13,775 4,133 5,238 9,541 18,224 -1 .3 -20.6 -2.3 5,645 1,748 2,808 7,035 2,538 1.8 15.0 -15.7 36.8 -3.6 1,525 467 742 1,696 634 7.2 21.3 -4.4 41.7 3-6 Liberty Li ncoln McCone Madison Meagher . 2,198 7,089 4,790 6,323 2,272 -9 .0 -9.1 0.9 -15.6 -13.3 1,459 2,603 3,558 3,329 1,120 -6.6 39.6 -12.1 -4.2 -11.2 467 734 946 783 305 16.2 45.9 -9.1 4.7 10.5 Mi neral Mi ssoula Mussel she!1 Park Petrol eum 1,626 21,782 7,242 10,922 2,045 -30.1 -9.4 -39.8 -3.6 - 441 3,649 1,696 2,993 1,192 16.7 11.7 -21.5 * -19.3 127 876 453 699 373 32.3 27.3 -13.7 6.6 2.8 Phi 11ips Pondera Powder River Powel1 Prai rie 8,208 6,964 3,909 6,202 3,941 -11.8 21.3 16.4 -10.2 7.0 5,165 4,037 3,391 1,605 2,100 -8 .3 1.1 -5.4 -8.9 -16.9 1,522 1,020 945 375 539 3.1 11.0 5.5 9.3 -3-6 Raval1 i Ri chi and Roosevelt Rosebud Sanders 10,315 9,633 10,672 7,347 5,692 2.1 7.2 3-1 -8.2 16.1 6,234 6,266 4,864 3,731 3,118 10.5 0.3 -13.4 -14.4 20.9 1,477 1,506 1,416 1,080 847 14.9 12.3 11.0 14.9 27.8 Sheri dan Si 1ver Bow S t i 11 water Sweet Grass Teton 9,869 56,969 6,253 3,944 6,068 -28.7 -5.5 -18.0 -19.9 3-4 5,697 799 3,724 2,119 4,041 -15.1 -10.1 -9.9 -14.0 -0.4 1,496 192 947 535 1,072 0.3 -9 .4 -1.6 0.6 4.8 Tool e T reasu re Valley Wheat 1and Wi baux Yellowstone 6,714 1,661 11,181 3,751 2,767 30,785 80.3 -16.5 -3.1 -33.2 -11.1 4.0 2,240 1,138 5,396 1,206 2,021 9,068 -2.3 -10.1 -22.2 -12.4 -3.1 -1.0 635 256 1,706 297 468 1,925 6.4 -3-8 -6.9 -8.3 -0.2 10.1 203,952 16.5 65,965 1.0 15,575 8.6 12,041 11,222 29.7 -7.3 2,012 5,289 -8.3 14.4 537 1,064 -2.0 12.2 WYOMING Total A lbany Big Horn 80 THE PEOPLE OF THE DROUGHT STATES T a b le B— POPULATION AND NUMBER OF FARMS IN 803 COUNTIES GREAT PLAINS REGION, State and County Total Populat ion 1930 IN THE 1920 TO 1935— Cont i nued Percent Increase or Dec rease From 1920 Farm Populat ion 1935 Percent Increase or Dec rease From 1930 Number of Farms 1935 Percent Increase or Decrease From 1930 WYOMING— Cont i nued Campbel1 Carbon Converse Crook Fremont 6,720 11,391 7,145 5.333 10,490 28.4 19.6 -9.2 -3.5 -11.3 4,647 2,219 3,209 3,932 5,468 -7.5 -1.0 -9.9 -6.0 27.3 1,277 639 851 1,038 1,326 -6.3 27.8 4.9 8.9 40.8 Goshen Hot Springs Johnson La rami e Natrona 11,754 5,476 4,816 26,845 24,272 45.8 6.0 4.3 29.7 65.8 7,791 1,378 2,217 4,389 1,714 5.6 6.4 -16.0 6.6 9.7 1,538 346 574 1,106 460 3.4 5-1.1 7.1 11.0 18.3 Niabrara Park P Iatte Sheridan Sweetwater 4,723 8,207 9,695 16,875 18,165 -25.3 12.5 -7.2 33.2 2,704 3,908 4,563 4,818 1,039 -2.7 5.1 -15.5 10.5 -18.1 738 889 1,005 1,002 274 1.5 29.2 -12.5 8.2 6.2 4,109 4,673 32.3 0.9 2,280 2,368 7.9 -6.4 350 611 7.4 -0.8 Washak i e Weston 30.6 COLORADO Total 923,608 11.2 223,395 -3.1 50,439 5.3 Adams Alamosa Arapahoe Baca Bent 20,245 8,602 22,647 10,570 9,134 40.3 -67.1 64.5 21.2 -5.9 9,131 2,390 5,965 7,014 3,784 -0.8 -1.0 22.9 -8.0 -11.5 2,088 490 1,535 1,805 899 9.2 -7.7 25.3 3.1 1.9 Boulder Chaffee Cheyenne Clear Creek Conejos 32,456 8,126 3,723 2,155 9,803 1.9 4.8 -0.6 -25.5 16.5 6,705 1,325 2,655 144 5,856 -4.6 -8.4 2.8 50.0 -0.7 1,505 324 671 41 1,053 2.2 5.5 7.4 20.6 -28.2 Cost i l i a Crowl ey Custer Denver Dougl as 5,779 5,934 2,124 287,861 3,498 14.8 -7.0 -2.2 12.2 -0.5 3,083 2,838 1,536 1,165 2,035 6.9 -17.1 12.9 10.5 0.6 574 606 407 279 474 -11.4 -3-2 0.2 8.6 8.2 Elbert El Paso Fremont G ilpin Grand 6,580 49,570 18,896 1,212 2,108 -5.7 12.6 5.7 -11.1 -20.7 4,952 5,627 5,240 171 1,057 -4.7 -8.3 13.1 40.2 22.9 1,296 1,453 1 .3 H 45 296 4.4 -0.7 3.2 32.4 29.3 Hinsdale Huerfano Jackson Jefferson Kiowa 449 17,062 1,386 21,810 3,786 -16.5 1.1 3.4 51.5 0.8 152 4,502 743 8,299 2,434 34.5 8.3 -4.9 2.7 -5.8 42 851 244 2,048 617 -4.5 12.0 20.2 12.7 6.6 Kit Carson Lake Larimer Las Animas Lincoln 9,725 4,899 33.137 36,008 7,850 9.1 -26.1 18.9 -7.6 -5.1 7,009 163 9,590 9,069 4,761 3.9 40.5 -6.4 -1.6 -7.4 1,730 39 2,047 1,900 1,268 6.1 -11.4 11.4 8.1 2.9 Logan Mineral Morgan Otero Park 19,946 640 18,284 24,390 2,052 8.2 -17.8 13.4 7.8 3.8 9,186 128 8,518 6,852 1,510 -3.5 12.3 -10.6 -9.9 30.7 1,929 49 1,612 1*372 483 4.6 -2.0 2.7 5.7 22.6 Phil 1ips Prowers Pueblo Rio Grande Routt 5,797 14,762 66,038 9,953 9,352 5.4 6.6 14.6 26.7 4.5 3,452 6,331 7,030 3.848 3.569 8.0 -9.3 -1.3 -11.2 11.1 876 1,472. 1,589 737 1,094 14.4 6.5 7.9 1.0 17.9 81 COUNTY DATA Tab le B— POPULATION GREAT State and County AND NUMBER OF FARMS PLAINS Total Populat ion 1930 REGI ON , IN 803 C O U N TI E S IN THE 1920 TO 193 5 — Co n t i nued Percent Increase or Decrease From 1920 Farm Population 1935 Percent Increase or Decrease From 1930 Number of Farms 1935 Percent Increase or Decrease From 1930 COLORADO— Cont i nued Saguache Sedgwi ck Summi t T e lle r Washington Weld Yuma 913 7,756 -2.6 12.7 4.5 54.2 0.8 697 646 64 265 1,894 25.1 15.4 4.9 11.3 8.0 20.4 -2.0 29,752 9,111 -12.6 -3-3 5,546 2,176 3.0 6,250 5,580 987 4,141 9,591 34.8 32.4 -42.7 -38.2 -14.4 2,620 3,194 65,097 13,613 230 1.6 NEW MEXICO Total 423,317 17.5 189,358 19.4 41,369 31.7 Bernal i 1lo Cat ron Chaves Col fax Curry 45,430 3,282 19,549 19,157 15,809 52.2 7,602 4,493 6,616 4,524 5,882 33-7 134.0 26.1 0.4 4.3 1,788 1,167 1,339 884 1,436 43-3 166.4 51.6 10.8 13.7 De Baca Dona Ana Eddy Grant Guadalupe 2,893 27,455 15,842 19,050 7,027 - 13.2 -12.3 1,589 12,401 5,486 3,289 3,888 10.7 -5.5 - I 3.9 37.8 51.8 397 1,993 775 782 851 if. a -6.4 -26.5 35.8 42.8 4,421 5,023 6,144 7,198 6,247 15.8 73-3 -8.0 -49.1 3)119 1,702 2,622 3,205 1,264 3.1 34.4 -1.9 4.6 23.6 705 441 736 716 305 12.3 31.6 20.7 25.8 29.8 McKinley Mora Otero Quay Rio Arriba 20,643 10,322 9,779 10,828 21,381 50.3 -25.8 23.8 3-7 9.4 7,089 7,182 2,937 5,464 16,458 5.2 -1.5 29.6 6.6 28.9 1,626 1,489 757 1,312 3,437 41.0 11.6 37.9 Roosevelt Sandoval San Juan San Miguel Santa Fe 11,109 11,144 14,701 23,636 19,567 69.7 25.7 76.4 3.4 30.2 8,568 7,785 8,831 11,417 5,892 9.8 26.9 1.3 48.9 84.0 1,918 1,871 1,669 2,350 1,261 21.5 42.9 17.4 40.7 83-6 Sierra Socorro Taos Torrance Union Valencia 5,184 9,611 14,394 9,269 11,036 16,186 12,2 - 31.6 12.7 -4.7 -33.8 17.3 2,090 5,315 11,311 6,372 6,289 8,676 -2.2 46.7 66.9 46.3 -6 .8 18.1 470 1,402 2,276 1,502 1,512 2,202 4.7 65.1 59.9 42.4 4.0 72.8 Hardi ng Hi dal go Lea Li ncoln Luna - 61.9 -11.1 40.7 -9.5 65.9 73.8 _ * L e s s than 0 .0 5 p e rc e n t. a No farm p o p u la t io n S o u rc e s : in 1930. f i f t e e n t h Censu s o f the U n ite d S t a t e s : 1930 and U nited S t a t e s C en su s o f A g r i c u lt u r e : 19 3 5 . 63-3 13.0