The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
business
•
rev.em
november 1966
FEDERAL RESERVE
BANK 0F DALLAS
This publication was digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org)
contents
texas seaport activity . ... . . . ... .. . ... . . .... .
district highlights . ... .. .... . .. . . ..... ... . .
3
11
texas seapo,-t activity
Port cltles perform many economic functions, the most important being the transfer of
goods from olle form of carrier to another.
Thus, a seaport is the transshipment point, or
transport node, par excellence. Industries directly connected with the transshipment of
goods by water must locate at a port; however,
many industries not directly involved in water
transport often are attracted to a port because
of the cost-saving features it may offer.
The movement of goods from producers to
consumers through the various stages of assembly, manufacturing, and shipment tends
to create an unsteady flow of products. Consequently, it is often most economical to
establish some industries at the point where
a natural break occurs in the shipping process.
Industries using bulk raw materials are espeCially sensitive to transshipment costs.
As might be expected, a port attracts a business class catering to the specialized needs of
marine shippers. These types of businesses include steamship agents, stevedoring companies,
MAJOR SEAPORTS OF TEXAS
freight forwarders, customhouse brokers, export packers, ship brokers, marine insurers,
and foreign consulates. Ship chandling, or the
supplying of ships, is an important port industry, of course, since many vessels spend thousands of dollars on seagoing provisions. Banks
provide customers with specialized financing
and other services related to waterborne shipping; and the profits made in shipping and
related businesses, as well as the opportunities
for new investment at a growing port, tend to
attract capital into a port city.
Much of the basic employment in a port city
stems from port activities and the industries
attracted to the area because of the port. Furthermore, employment in longshoring, maritime
trades, and port-oriented industries creates
work opportunities in retailing, government,
education, the professions, and other industries
not directly dependent upon waterborne commerce. The existence of a navigable waterway
in conjunction with other natural resources and
locational advantages has often provided the
ingredients essential for the development of a
major industrial and commercial center.
the seaports
The long coastline on the Gulf of Mexico,
the abundance of mineral and agricultural resources, and the growing economy of the
Southwest have provided a significant boost to
the development of Texas coastal waterways
and ports. The Texas ports have somewhat
similar characteristics, in that they all have access to the Intracoastal Waterway and rely predominantly upon shipments of raw or bulk
materials.
MEXICO
GULF OF MEXICO
The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway has made
an especially vital contribution to the develop-
business review/ november 1966
3
ment of Texas ports. The waterway provides a
continuous link extending from Brownsville,
on the international border, to the mouth of
the Mississippi River. The advantages afforded
by a protected inland waterway do not end
here, however, since the intracoastal canal joins
a vast inland waterway network via New Orleans - namely, the Mississippi River and its
tributaries. Thus, each of the Texas ports has
an inland waterway connection to virtually all
the major industrialized areas of the United
States with the exception of the Far West. Access to this vast waterway network is of major
economic importance, as water transportation
has long been associated with low transportation costs.
One of the most industrialized areas of the
world, Western Europe, has an extensive system of inland waterways that is used intensively. The economic advance of Europe is
related, in large measure, to the economies of
barge transportation. The United States has
relied on its inland waterways, especially during the pre-Civil War period. Subsequently, the
railroads captured much of the traffic and
romance of inland transport, but the inland
waterways continue to provide transportation
for an increasing volume of industrial raw materials. The intracoastal canal and connecting
waterway network are significant for not only
the Texas ports but also the entire area served
by the system. Barge traffic may have contributed more to the industrial development of the
area than is generally realized.
barges, there need be no crew besides the tug
crew; consequently, once the barge has reached
its destination, there is no pressing need to
unload, as is the case with ships.
Initially, port activity in the State was heavily
dependent upon agriculture, and cotton was
the first major export from Texas ports. Galveston became the focal point for shipments since
it was the only port on the Texas coast, prior to
about 1900, with enough capacity to handle a
large volume of traffic. For this reason, Galveston developed into a major southern port, and
the capture of Galveston by Federal forces for
a short while during the War Between the States
was considered to be an important Union vic~
tory. A hurricane in 1900 virtually destroyed
Galveston, and this event reinforced previous
efforts of leaders in other cities to develop pro~
tected deepwater facilities.
With the discovery of abundant oil reserves
in Texas early in the 20th century, port growth
CARGO TONNAGES HANDLED
BY TEXAS PORTS
MILLIONS Of 'IONS
40
BEAUMONT
30
Shipment by barges is the cheapest form of
water transportation, even though their use is
limited to protected, or inland, waterways because barges require protection from wave and
wind action. Since barge cargoes - especially
in the United States - consist mainly of bulk
commodities, automatic cargo-handling devices
can be fully utilized, and less labor is needed
than with the more conventional vessels. With
4
_-
--'
~ ~-,---.,..,.
~~---~"..
.,. ;
,.. .... -
- -
-
...
_ ~ PORT ARTHUR
........
20
... - ;
CORPUS CHRISTI
- - ... -
10
- ... - ... _ ...... TEXAS CITY
GALVESTON
BROWNSVILLE .,. ...
o -- ... - - - - - - - ,
1956
1958
SOURCE: U,S. Corps of J;;ns!nccr:l.
1960
1962
1964
in Texas subsequently was due primarily to the
oil and petrochemical industries, rather than
cotton. Shipments of cotton, together with a
rising volume of grain shipments from the mid"Continent region and interior Texas points,
still make Texas ports important shippers of
agricultural commodities, but tonnages of
petroleum products and chemicals today far
outweigh agricultural shipments.
Water transport provided an efficient and
low-cost means of shipping petroleum and petroleum products to the populous consuming
areas of the United States. In view of the growing petroleum industry and the efficiency of
water transport, the desirability of developing
ports in addition to Galveston was quickly
recognized. There were other natural bays and
harbors along the Texas coast, such as Corpus
Christi Bay and Sabine Lake, which were well
adapted for port facilities. In other areas, such
as Houston and Brownsville, channels were
dredged in order to gain access to the Gulf of
Mexico. Many of the major cities on the Texas
Coast became sites for oil refining and petrochemical complexes because of the advantages
of proximity to oil reserves and access to deep
Water. In addition to crude and refined petroleum products and petrochemicals, Texas port
cities have handled increasing tonnages of sulfUr, aluminum ores and ingots, iron and steel
scrap, finished tubular goods, and rolled steel
mill products.
Between 1955 and 1964 (the latest year for
Which data are available), the tonnage handled
at Texas ports increased about 26 percent. De~pite the growth in tonnage handled - includl1lg a greater volume of general cargo - and
the increased industrialization in the State, bulk
cOmmodities remained the most important
Texas port cargoes in the midsixties, for shipments of petroleum, grain, and bauxite steadily
advanced over the past decade. Nevertheless,
the growth of industry will undoubtedly mean
that more manufactured goods will enter into
export markets and, relatively speaking, smaller
quantities of bulk commodities, such as oil,
will be shipped.
The tonnages handled by the various Texas
ports vary widely. The Port of Houston moved
about 32 percent of the total tonnage passing
through Texas ports in 1964. Beaumont and
Port Arthur ranked high, with about 17 percent and 16 percent, respectively. Corpus
Christi, including Harbor Island, accounted for
16 percent, and Texas City handled around 11
percent. Each of the other Texas ports moved
tonnages that were 3 percent or less of the
total.
galveston bay ports
The Galveston Bay area has developed an
impressive port complex composed of Houston,
Galveston, and Texas City. The total tonnage
exported by the three ports is second only to
that for Norfolk, Virginia, a large coal exporter. A large percentage of the export tonnage of the Galveston Bay ports consists of
tankship, or liquid cargo, exports. In tonnage
imported, the Houston-Galveston-Texas City
complex ranks 13th in the Nation. The Port
of Houston is the largest Texas port, ranking
3rd in the Nation in the dollar value of exports,
4th in export tonnage, and 14th in import
tonnage.
THE EIGHT MOST IMPORTANT
COMMODITIES HANDLED IN 1964
AT GALVESTON BAY PORTS'
(In short tons)
Commodity
Tonnage
Gasoline . .
. . . ........ . .. .
Gas oi l and disti ll ate fuel oil
Petroleum, crude
Shells, unmanufactured
Wheat
Sulfuric acid
Lubricating oils and greases ..
Sand , grave l, and crushed rock
13,357,669
11,467,493
10,061,504
7,370,954
6,075,582
1,853,146
1,616,150
1,588,255
Houston, Galveston, and Texas City.
SO URCE: U.S. Corps of Engineers .
1
business review/november 1966
5
A port may be ranked in importance on the
basis of a specific measure. Measures commonly used are total tonnage, export or import
tonnages, total value of cargo handled, value of
exports or imports, and number of ship entries
or departures. Regardless of which common
measure is used, Houston is among the leading American ports.
Partially as a consequence of the disastrous
1900 hurricane at Galveston, the Houston Ship
Channel was completed in 1915, and the locus
of major port activity shifted from Galveston
to Houston. The Ship Channel is 50 miles long,
and 25 miles are lined with either cargohandling facilities or industrial installations,
notably refining and petrochemical facilities.
Approximately 59 million tons of cargo were
moved on the Houston Ship Channel in 1964;
of this total, general cargo tonnage accounted
for over 5 million tons. The major bulk commodities moved were petroleum, chemicals,
grains, and metals.
Seaport activity is commonly associated with
foreign trade, but foreign commerce may account for only a relatively small proportion of
a port's shipments. In the case of the Port of
Houston, gasoline shipments totaled 8.6 million tons and ranked first in tonnage during
1964. Almost 80 percent of this amount represented coastwise shipments to other American
ports, primarily those on the eastern seaboard.
Another 14 percent consisted of shipments on
internal waterways of the United States. Only a
r~latively small quantity of the gasoline entered
foreign trade. In the case of crude petroleum,
roughly three-quarters of the port's shipments
were made on inland waterways.
The Houston area is a major oil refining center and is the leader in petrochemical production in the United States. Petroleum and chemicals account for about 63 percent of the total
value added by manufacturing in the area - a
development stemming from the availability
6
VESSEL TRIPS AND CARGO TONNAGES
FOR TEXAS PORTS, 1964
(Inbound and ou tbound)
THOUSANDS OF TRIPS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
~
BR OWNSVILLE
GALVESTON
CORPUS CHRISTI
~
o VESSEL TRIPS
9
o CARGO TONNAGES
~
I-I OUSTON
J
J
I
I
I
BEAUMONT
I
I
PORT/IRTHUR
J
I
I
TEXAS CITY
I
I
MILLIONS OFTONS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
SOURCE: U.S. Corps of Engineors.
of such raw materials as oil, natural gas, sulfur,
lime, salt, and phosphate rock and from the
advantages afforded by low-cost water transport. Petroleum, shipped mainly as bulk cargo,
has traditionally dominated shipments from the
Houston Ship Channel. In terms of general
cargo tonnage, chemicals rank second in importance after steel. Exclusive of barge shipments,
more than one-quarter of a million tons of
chemicals are exported as general cargo. In
addition to petrochemicals, inorganic chemicals account for quite large shipments; in fact,
sulfuric acid is Houston's leading chemical
export.
Houston's excellent dock facilities have
helped make the port the Nation's leading foreign steel importer. The port handled over a
million tons of domestic and foreign rolled finished steel mill products in 1964. About half
of the tonnage brought into the area came from
foreign sources, and receipts of steel products
from inland waterways accounted for the rest;
thus, the port is a large handler of domestically
produced tonnages as well. Furthermore, it has
been announced tbat a new steel plant will be
built at Cedar Point, just off the Ship Channel.
Initial plans include the construction of two
electric furnaces, a plate miU, and other facilities.
Grain is another major export of Houston.
The port has successively set new records in
the volume of grain shipped; and in 1964,
about 150 miUion bushels of grain were handled. Wheat and wheat flour comprised by far
the largest tonnage of grain and grain products
exported, and Houston leads all other U.S.
ports in the shipment of wheat. The remaining
grain exports consisted of grain sorghums, rye,
barley, and rice. A recent major addition to
dockside elevator capacity increased the port's
total elevator capacity to 21 million bushels.
The construction of a 3-million-bushel facility
at the J acintoport industrial park on the Ship
Channel is being planned by one of the Nation's most important grain specialists. The
completion of this new elevator is likely to
keep Houston in the forefront as a major grain
port.
It is not possible to determine precisely the
Contribution that the Houston Ship Channel is
making to the economy of the area. Local estimates suggest that approximately 10,000 people are directly involved in the work of the port
and that, altogether, about 100,000 people are
employed in industrial pursuits in the vicinity
of the Ship Channel. It has been estinlated that
perhaps one out of every three dollars of purchaSing power in the Houston area may be
traced to the activities of the port.
The large cotton exports from the Southwest
have made Galveston the leading cotton exPorter in the Nation. During 1964, about half
a million tons of cotton were shipped to foreign countries from the port, or more than twice
the cotton tOlmage exported by Houston. New
Orleans, a traditional shipper of the COllID10dity, was the second most important cotton port
in the United States. Galveston also is an important exporter of grains, particularly grain
sorghums, wheat, and wheat flour; and a large
tonnage of sulfur is handled at the port.
Texas City is tbe third major port located
on Galveston Bay. Petroleum products and
chemicals constitute by far the bulk of tbe
commodities bandIed . During tbe early sixties,
significant increases occurred in the shipment
of tbese products, reflecting the · continued
growtb of tbe area.
corpus christi bay ports
The Port of Corpus Christi is another dynamic soutbwestern port that bas developed
very rapidly by any standard of measurement.
Corpus Christi Bay is located at a natural break
in tbe barrier islands off the soutbern coast of
Texas. Since these offshore islaBds hinder the
development of any potential ports in tbe area,
Corpus Christi is likely to remain an important
seaport in the State.
During 1964, almost 30 miUion tons of cargo
were moved tbrougb the Corpus Christi Bay
area; and in terms of tonnage handled, tbe port
ranked 10th in the Nation. The largest single
cargo moved was crude oil, a development
THE EIGHT MOST IMPORTANT
COMMODITIES HANDLED IN 1964
AT CORPUS CHR ISTI BAY PORTS'
(In short tons)
Commodity
Tonnage
Petro leu m, crude ... ... ... . .. .. . . ....... .
Aluminum ores, concentrates, a nd scrap . .. .
Gas oi l an d distillate fuel oil .. . .. .. . . . .. .. .
Gasoline ...... , .,. . .. .. . . . ... . . ..... . .
Grain sorghums .. . .. ..•... .. ... . . .• . . ...
Wheat . . . . . , . .. .... . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Res idua l fuel oi l ... ..• . . . . . .... .. .. ... ..
Kerosene ...... .. .... .. .. ... . .. .. . . ... • •
9,834,144
7,639,826
3,666,7 26
3,535,903
1,046,608
600,294
4·0 4,849
382,149
Corpus Christi a nd Harbor Island.
SOURCE: U.S. Corps of Engineers.
1
business review/ november 1966
7
were largely responsible for the area's choice
as a location for the production of aluminum
from imported bauxite. Another major smelting firm refines zinc and cadmium from imported ores, and sulfuric acid is a by-product.
Numerous other industrial chemicals are produced in the area, and another firm relies on
water transport to haul oyster shells from
Nueces Bay for making cement.
FOREIGN EXPORTS AND IMPORTS
AT TEXAS PORTS, 1964
BROWN SVILL E
~
o EXPORTS
I
GALVESTON
o
IMPORTS
I
CORPUS CHRISTI
I
I
..
HOUSTON
.,
I
BEAUMONT
I
PORT ARTHUR
BILLIONS OF POUN DS
I
I
0
4
8
12
16
20
SOURCE: U.S_ Dcparhncn t or Commerce.
which is in keeping with the fact that petroleum
refining is the city's principal nonmilitary industry. Approximately 127 million barrels, or
about 10 million tons, of petroleum products
moved through the port in 1964, making Corpus Christi one of the Nation's leading oil
ports. Coastwise shipments, mainly to the eastern seaboard, dominated the movement of petroleum, accounting for about 60 percent of the
total. Most of the remaining cargo tonnage also
entered into domestic trade via inland waterways.
Aluminum ores were the second most important commodity handled, with the bulk of
the tonnage being foreign imports. The substantial importation of aluminum ores for local
smelting is a characteristic that distinguishes
the Corpus Christi Port from other major Texas
ports. As a consequence of the heavy inflow of
this raw material, the import tonnages at Corpus Christi exceed those at other Texas ports
by a considerable amount.
The presence of a good port and the availability of relatively inexpensive natural gas
8
The port has good grain-handling facilities,
including two dockside grain elevators. A world
leader in the export of grain sorghums, the port
shipped its highest tonnage of these and other
grains, totaling almost 59 million bushels, in
1964. A substantial volume of other agricultural products - such as flour, dried milk, and
animal feeds - also is channeled through Corpus Christi. In addition to nonmilitary users,
the U.S. Naval Air Station and the U.S. Army
Aeronautical Depot Maintenance Center have
found a port location convenient.
sabine lake ports
Another industrial area of growing importance in the Southwest is the Sabine Lake region. As in the case of most of the other major
Texas ports, petroleum has played the leading
role in the industrialization of the area. There
are three port cities in this region - Beaumont,
Orange, and Port Arthur - and the Sabine
Pass Port, which handles mostly coastwise and
intraport traffic. Much of the current expansion
of the petrochemical industry relates in some
way to the seaports in the area. Moreover, the
existence of the ports enhances the prospects of
new plant location to this section of Texas.
Port Arthur, on the shore of Sabine Lake,
has a particularly favorable location with respect to access to both the sea and the intracoastal canal. Beaumont is located inland on
the Neches River, and Orange has an inland
location but is on the Sabine River. Among the
three ports, Beaumont ranked first in tonnage
in 1964 with almost 30 million tons; Port
Arthur was a close second with over 27 million
tons; and Orange was third with about 1 million toos.
the smaller Texas ports - Brownsville and
Port Lavaca-Point Comfort-have waterborne
commerce which differs in certain aspects from
that of the other ports.
The overwhelming proportion of the cargo
movement of the Sabine ports consists of petroleum; relatively minimal amounts of the petroleum products enter foreign trade with the
exception of a fairly large quantity of lubricating oils and greases. Although foreign petroleum imports are modest in quantity, there are
large coastwise shipments and receipts of crude,
and the inland waterways are heavily used for
moving petroleum products into and out of
the Sabine Lake ports. About three-fourths of
the gasoline tonnage handled by these ports
consists of outbound coastwise shipments.
Brownsville, on the Lower Rio Grande
River, gained access to the Gulf of Mexico in
the 1930's. Since the port is not located on a
natural bay, the harbor and channel are manmade. The channel to the Gulf does not follow
the riverbed, as might be assumed, but has
been cut directly from the Gulf to the outskirts
of the city of Brownsville, a distance of about
18 miles.
Sabine area ports are also important exporters of farm products, especially wheat, sorghum
grain, flour, and rice. Seashells received via
the inland waterways account for a sizable
tonnage, and substantial volumes of various
Chemicals pass through the Sabine area ports.
Shipments of sulfur produced along the Gulf
Coast are particularly large.
In 1965, a large manufacturer of paper, corrugated, and solid-fiber shipping box materials
announced the construction of a plant near
Orange. The facility will eventually employ 300
Workers, and another 200 will be involved in
allied services. A plant site near a port was a
major consideration in the facility's location
because a large percentage of the output will
be exported abroad.
other texas ports
Texas has several other important ports and
landings, including Freeport and Port Mansfield, which will not be discussed separately in
this article. Generally, activity at these ports,
as in the case of most other Texas ports, relies
heavily upon petroleum and chemicals. Two of
Since the port is located at the southern end
of the Intracoastal Waterway and is on the
international border, activities at the Brownsville Port are affected extensively by trade with
Mexico. Of the total 4.4 million tons of cargo
handled in 1964, four-fifths consisted of crude
oil, much of which was foreign oil transshipped
through the United States, under bond, into
Mexico via what has been termed the "Brownsville loop." Foreign oils transshipped via the
loop come back into the United States as overland foreign imports and are not subject to the
quotas placed upon foreign oil imported by
water.
Brownsville also acts as a transshipper of
many Mexican raw materials. Cotton, metallic
ores, and semirefined metals enter the United
States through Matamoros in order to be transshipped from Brownsville. A sizable volume of
the metals is transported via the intracoastal
canal to U.S. consuming areas.
Port Lavaca-Point Comfort, a small port, is
a newcomer as a deepwater Texas port. The
26-mile Matagorda Ship Channel was opened
in 1965, and it is anticipated that the port
eventually may handle over 2 million tons of
additional cargo. Bauxite, or aluminum are,
presently is the largest import, and aluminum
is the principal export.
business review/ november 1966
9
concluding comments
The prospects for continued expansion of
Texas port activity appear quite promising.
There is increasing interest in improving existing streams which flow into the Gulf of Mexico, notably the Trinity, Red, and Sabine
Rivers, so that barge traffic can be accommodated. The completion of the Mansfield
Port in 1962 and the Matagorda Ship Channel in 1965 indicates that communities along
the Gulf Coast are well aware of the great
potentialities a deepwater port affords for economic growth and development. The contribution being made to the economy of Houston by
its port can hardly escape the notice of leaders
in other coastal areas. The Port of Houston is
already ranked among the foremost American
ports, although it has been in operation for a
relatively short time - about 50 years; and
Houston and her sister ports on the Gulf continue to attract industry.
The potential hinterland of the Texas ports
is very large, consisting of the southwestern
states and a considerable portion of the middle
western states; and this area is well traversed
by an excellent rail and highway network,
which provides the vital links from seaport to
landlocked areas. Currently, the region does
not include markets comparable to those of the
heavily populated and industrially developed
eastern seaboard. Thus, a deterrent to expan-
new
member
bank
10
sion of activity at Texas seaports is the imbalance between inbound and outbound cargo
shipments. Texas ports remain typically characterized by large shipments, rather than receipts, of cargo. However, industrialization and
population growth rates in the Southwest are
among the highest in the country.
It is highly doubtful that any Texas port
could ever achieve New York's status as a
passenger port. The city's geographical position
vis-a-vis Europe and North America gives it
a unique advantage in this regard, and the great
trans-Atlantic liners sailing from various parts
of Europe converge on one U.S. seaportNew York. It is highly improbable, especially
with the advent of air travel, that New York's
dominance in the water transport of passengers
will be overcome by any other American port.
Nevertheless, Texas ports, particularly Houston, may be able to develop a greater passenger
trade with the Caribbean area and Latin America than is now experienced.
All in all, the Texas ports are vital to the development of the southwestern region. Their
continuing growth will enhance the area and
bring it into greater economic importance, not
only in the United States but in the world as
well.
RAYNAL HAMMELToN
General Economist
The Fort Hood National Bank, Fort Hood, Texas, a newly organized institution located in the territory served by the Head Office of the Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas, opened for business October 17, 1966, as a member of the
Federal Reserve System. The new member bank has capital of $200,000, surplus
of $150,000, and undivided profits of $75,000. The officers are: W. Guy Draper,
Chairman of the Board; Roy J. Smith, President; B. M. Beck, Vice President;
H. B. Davis, Vice President; 1. A. Deorsam, Cashier; Melton L. Kunkel ,
Assistant Cashier; and Billy H. Wiseman, Assistant Cashier.
district highlights
Holdings of negotiable time certificates of
deposit issued in denominations of $100,000 or
more declined $65.0 million, or 6.0 percent, at
weekly reporting commercial banks in the
Eleventh District during the 6 weeks ended
October 12. The decline was concentrated in
the accounts of individuals, partnerships, and
corporations, which decreased $67.8 million;
all other accounts rose $2.7 million.
Despite this deposit drain, the District's
banks have been very successful in retaining
CD's, relative to the experience of the Nation's
banks and to that of the major money market
banks. While the District's banks were showing
a loss of 6.0 percent in their holdings of large
CD's, all weekly reporting commercial banks
in the Nation experienced an 8.5-percent attrition, and the money market banks in New York
and Chicago had reductions of 10.5 percent
and 20.1 percent, respectively. The level of
CD's (issued in denominations of $100,000 or
more) outstanding in the District was $1.0 billion on October 12.
The seasonally adjusted Texas industrial
production index increased nearly 2 percent in
September to reach 148.7 percent of the 195759 base and was 9 percent higher than in the
same month last year. Output of durable goods
rose almost 2 percent in September; however,
activity among the industries within the category was somewhat mixed, as increases for
some contrasted with declines for others. Transportation equipment manufacturing posted a
gain of 7 percent, which is mainly attributable
to the model changeover in automobiles, and
electrical machinery production also advanced.
Both of these categories showed sizable percentage increases over a year earlier. Stone,
clay, and glass products expanded somewhat
over August. This production category is linked
to activity in the construction industry, which
has shown a severe drop this summer; and compared with September last year, output of stone,
clay, and glass products declined 5 percent.
Nondurable goods manufacturing rose slightly
over 2 percent during September. Petroleum
refining and related industries registered an
output gain during the month, much of which
was associated with the buildup of heating fuel
inventories. Other nondurables categories experienced little change during September except
printing, publishing, and allied industries, which
showed a decline.
Partial data indicate that daily average crude
oil production advanced 0.9 percent in the
Eleventh Federal Reserve District during October and was 6.8 percent higher than in the
same month last year. The increase in production in Texas during October paralleled the
0.8-percent increases in both the Nation and
the District as a whole. Crude oil output rose
2.1 percent in southeastern New Mexico, and
output in northern Louisiana remained unchanged. Compared with a year earlier, crude
oil stocks were up 3.7 percent and 3.3 percent,
respectively, in the Eleventh District and in the
United States. The Texas allowable for October was 33.5 percent of proratable potential
production; for November, it has been set at
34.5 percent, the highest rate since June.
Nonagricultural wage and salary employment in the five southwestern states advanced
0.3 percent during September to a total of
5,407,900 workers. The advance is slightly
larger than the normal seasonal change for
September and stems mainly from the 3.5-
business review/ november 1966
11
percent increase in government employment,
which reflects the beginning of the school term.
All other major categories of nonmanufacturing employment decreased. As a result of the
continued downturn in home building, construction employment showed the largest dip
- 1.8 percent. The work force in manufacturing was little changed from the previous month.
Nonagricultural employment in the five states
in September rose 4.3 percent over the same
month in 1965. Manufacturing employment
was 7.1 percent higher, and the number of
workers in nonmanufacturing industries was
3.7 percent greater. Virtually all the nonmanufacturing employment categories registered
year-to-year increases, although mining was
less buoyant than the others. Employment in
construction, however, eased 0.5 percent below
the figure for September 1965.
In September, the month preceding the introduction of the 1967 models by major U.S.
manufacturers, registrations of new passenger
cars in four major Texas markets declined 27
percent from August of this year and were 5
percent below September 1965. In comparison
with the same 9 months last year, registrations
during January-September this year were little
different. Registrations were down 1 percent
and 2 percent, respectively, in Dallas and in
Houston but were up 2 percent in both Fort
Worth and San Antonio.
new
par
banks
12
District department store sales for the 4
weeks ended October 22 were 4 percent higher
than in the comparable period a year ago. Cumulative sales thus far in 1966 were up 7 percent from those at the same time in the previous
year.
Soil moisture is generally adequate over the
District states. Open weather has furthered land
preparation and has been beneficial to harvesting of fall crops. Seeding of small grains is
about complete, and most of the early-planted
acreage is up to good stands. Cotton production in the five southwestern states, as of October 1, is placed at 5.0 million bales, or 25
percent below that of last year. The decline results from a 26-percent reduction in acreage,
as the yield per acre is up slightly.
The District citrus crop is making good proggress, and harvesting is under way. The cooler
weather and adequate soil moisture have furthered the development of citrus fruits, as well
as fall and winter vegetable crops. Output of
grapefruit and oranges is estimated to be 18
percent larger than a year earlier. Texas citruS
production is placed at 7.8 million boxes, or
53 percent above that of 1965.
Southwestern ranges and pastures are providing the best grazing in several years. The
condition of cattle is good, and gains are resulting from the adequate forage supply.
The Peoples Bank, Willcox, Arizona, an insured nonmember bank located
in the territory served by the EI Paso Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of
Dallas, was added to the Par List on its opening date, October 14, 1966. The
officers are: S. L. Sanders, President, and Bobby Simpson, Vice President and
Cashier.
The Guaranty Bank & Trust Company of Delhi, Delhi, Louisiana, an insured
nonmember bank located in the territory served by the Head Office of the
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, was added to the Par List on its opening date,
October 17, 1966. The officers are: Clovis E. Prisock, President, and James K.
Sehon, Cashier.
STATISTICAL SUPPLEMENT
to the
BUSINESS REVIEW
November 1966
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF DALLAS
RESERVE POSITIO NS OF MEMBER BANKS
CONDITION STATISTICS OF WEEKLY REPORT ING
COMMERCIAL BANKS
Eleve nt h Fe d era l Reserve Distr ict
Ele venth Federa l Reserve District
(Averages of dai ly flg ures. In th ousands o f doll a rs)
=-
(In thousands of dollarsl
Item
Oct. 26,
1966
Se pt. 28,
1966
Oct. 27,
1965 '
ASSETS
Net loan s and di scounts •••• . •• .•. • . • . • • • . ••• ..
Valuation Re serv es ..•••...• • •.... • • . •.. • •.•••
Gross loan s and discounts •..•• . .•• . . • •.•. . • • ..
5,040,566
91 ,33 1
5,131,897
5,057,530
91 ,896
5,149,426
4,795,484
80,249
4,875,733
Comm ercia l and industrial loans • .. • •• .. •• . .••
Agricultural loons%• • • •• • • •• • • • • •• • • • • ••••••
Loons to brok ers and d eal ers for
purcha sing or carrying :
U.S. Gov e rnm e nt se curities •• • •.. • •• . • • • • ••
Oth e r securiti es • . • • • . •• . • •• •• .. • • •• • •• ••
Oth e r lo an s for purchasing or carrying :
U.S. Gov e rnm e nt securities ••• ••• • • •. ••• • • •
2,492,712
83,635
2,504,612
86,318
2,204,482
63,848
40,304
2
39,725
274
41,533
1,015
332,906
1,015
324,733
2, 149
308,594
Re al estate loan s • • •••• •• •• .•• •••.•• .•. •• .•
Loans to dom estic commercial banks • • •• • •.••. •
Loans to for e ign banks • •• •• ..•. •• .•.• •••• . •
Consum e r instalm e nt loans •• • • • ••. • • .•• •• ...•
Loans to for e ign governm e nts, official
institutions, e tc . • ..• ••• • •• . • . •••• ... • •. •••
Oth e r loan s' • • •• •• . • . ••••• .• •• . • •••..•• • .•
154,798
259, 107
472,019
154,904
6, 141
601,135
158,64 1
276,270
467,786
147,239
6,214
595,336}
130,925
297,892
437,935
145,445
4,801
0
533,214
541,535
Total investm e nts . •••••• ••. ••• • . • ••• . ••••..••
2,208,165
2,184,483
2, 168,831
Total U.S . Government se curiti es • • • ... •• • •. • ..
Tr e a sur y bills .• •. .••. • . • • • . • .... • • • . ••..
Tr e a sury cer tifica te s of ind e btedn ess .•• • . •••
Tre a sur y note s an d U.S. bonds maturing :
1,074,870
46,434
16,842
1,062,889
24,0 13
17,287
1,243,115
94,034
0
Within 1 ye ar •• • •• • •• ..• •••••• •• •••••
145,250
569,011
297,333
147,686
574,304
299,599
202,625
600, 185
346,27 1
Othe r securities •• •.•. ... ..• . . . .. ••••• •.•
loons to nonbank flnancial institutions:
So le s Anance , persona l flnanc o, factors,
and oth e r bu sin ess cre dit compani es • • • • • . •
Other . . • •••• .. ••• . . ••.•••• . • . • • .. . • • •.
1 year to 5 ye ars • • •. • •••• • • . .••• •• .••
Aft er 5 ye ars .... ... . ... . . .. .. .. ......
Obligations of state s and political subdivisions:
Ta x warrants and shor t-t e rm note s and bills • •
All other .. ........... .. . . ............ ..
.,
14,74 1
960,886
o
5 w eeks e nd e d
O ct. 6, 196~
629,344
583,151
46, 193
623,112
6,232
68,587
- 62,355
610,78 1
566,493
44,288
608,379
2,402
40, 194
-37,792·
617,883
574, 163
43,720
611 ,19 1
6,692
12,342
_5,650
63 1,402
477,642
153,760
596,330
35,072
15,896
19, 176
620.D98
471,099
148,999
588,608
31,490
19,228
12,262
592,372
451,823
140,549
555,785
36,587
9,514
27,073
1,260,746
1,060,793
199,953
1,2 19,442
41,304
84,483
-43, 179
1,230,879
1,037,592
193,287
1,196,987
33,892
59,422
-25,530
1,2 10,255
1,025,986
184,269
1,1 66,976
43,279
21,856
21,423
RESERVE CITY BANKS
Tota l reserves he ld ••• ..••••.••
With Fe d era l Re se rve Ba nk. . • .
Currency a nd coi n •• •. . .•.. . •
Req uired res erves .• .. . ••.• . • . •
Exces s re serve s ••• . •• ...• •. ...
Borrowings • . .....• ••••••• • •••
Free re serves • •• ••.•••• • . . • • • •
COU NTRY BANKS
Total reserves he ld . • • ..... • • • •
With Fede ra l Reserve Bank .. . .
Currency a nd coi n .. •••• . ••• •
Require d reserves . • • . •• ... ••• .
Excess res e rves • • .•• ••••. .• • • •
Borrowings •••• •. . •• . •. • • •. . .•
Free rese rves • •••• . . • ••• . . . • . •
"'' '}
To ta l reserves he ld • .•..• . ... • •
With Fe d e ral Re serve Bank .. . .
Currency an d coin . •• • ••• • • • •
Requi red reserves •• . .• •. ..••. •
Excess reserv es • • • • • .. •• ••••.•
Borrowings • • ...••. . . •• • .. ••••
Free reserve s •.• • • • •.•.• • •.. • •
CONDITION OF THE FED ERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS
l in th ousa nds of do ll a rs )
====================================~
Item
O ct. 26,
1966
Sept. 28,
1966
Oct. 27,
1965
Total gol d ce rtiflcate res e rves • •• • I • • • • • • • • • •
Discounts for mem b e r banks • •.• •• .• • • • ••.••
O ther d iscounts a nd a d va nce s • • •..• • • •• • •. •
U.S. G overnm e nt securiti es • • • •• . ••• • • • ••• . •
Total ea rning asse ts • • • • • .. • •• . . •• . • .. ••• ..
Me mber bank re se rve d e posits . •. . .. •• • •• • • •
Federal Reserve no tes in actual circulation • • •••
38 1,754
106,800
870
1,663,5 14
1,771,184
1,00 1,447
1,239,004
425,604
107,249
696
1,574,951
1,682,896
937,462
1,243,555
13,568
1,914
1,640,026
1,655,508
871,26 1
1,154,647
-------------------------------------------289,382
955,883
85,640
68,600
772,008
558,646
76,953
460,835
3,782
320,946
750,127
479,744
70, 153
46 1,843
3,391
29 1,851
TOTAL ASSETS ..... .. . . .... . ..... .. ... .
9,524,026
9,435,183
9,021 ,424
925,716
---------------------------------------------------------------
CONDI TIO N STATISTICS OF ALL MEMB ER BANKS
LIABIlITIES
Tota l d e posits . . . .. . . ... ... . .... . ..... .. .. ..
8,063,182
8,005,3 18
7,868,524
Tota l d e mand deposits • • , .. • • •. ••••• •• •• •••
Individual s, pa rtn e rship s, and corporatio ns • • ••
States and political subdivision s • . ... ••• . • ..
U.S. Gove rnm e nt • • , • . .. . •••••• .• . .• •. . • •
Banks in th e Unite d Sta tes • .• • ••. •• ..•• .. • •
Fore ign:
Gove rnm e nts, official institutions, etc . . • •..•
Comm e rcial banks •... • • •. . .. ••••... •• •
Ce rtifi e d and ofAc e rs' ch e ck s, e tc ... . .. .....
·, Total tim e and saving s d e posits •••• • • ••••••• •
Individual s, partn e rship s, and corporations:
Savi ngs d e po sits .•• . .. • .. . •... • • ..•• ••
Oth e r tim e d e po sits • • .... .. ••••..• • .. ••
States and po litical subd ivisions ••• •••••••• .
U.S . Gove rnment (incl uding p ostal savi ng s) • ••
Banks in the Uni te d State s • • • •• • • • .. • • ••• ••
Fore ign:
Gov e rnm e nts, official institutions, etc . .. • •..
Comm e rcial banks . • •• •.••• • ••• • . .• • • .•
Bills pa yabl e, re disco unts, and oth e r
lia bilities for borrowed mon ey • •. . • ••••••. • • •
4,906,839
3,456,504
267,824
83,469
1,020,790
4,832,757
3,3 10,998
332,919
123,230
983,881
4,763,511
3,298,407
262,283
67,59 1
1,054,887
2,830
18,672
56,750
3,156,343
3,486
18,279
59,964
3,172,56 1
3,037
21,383
55,923
3,105,01 3
1,175,787
1,384,869
570,616
8,849
13,882
1,199,697
1,366,84 1
578,6 11
8,855
16,217
1,338,731
' 1,337,240
414,4 15
3,119
9,068
800
1,540
800
1,540
500
1,940
426,3 16
184,466
396,669
188,184
191 ,932
156,120
850,062
845,012
804,848
9,524,026
9,435, 183
9,02 1,424
1 Becau se of format and cove rag e re visions a s o f July 6 , 1966 , e arlier data oro not
full y com parabl e.
:! Ce rtifi cates of participation in Fe deral ag e ncy loans incl ude Co mm odity Credit
Co rporation ce rtificat es of int e res t previous ly incl uded in "Agric u lt u ral lo ans" a nd
Export. 1mport Bank pa rti ci patio ns previ ously includ e d in " O ther loa ns . "
3 Amount includ es do po sits accumu late d fo r paym e nt o f instalme nt loans; a s a res u lt
of a chang e in Fe de ral Rese rve re g u lations, e ffe ctive J un e 9, 1966, such deposits a re
no long e r re porte d.
2
Sept. 7, 1966
' 1,237,855
89,672
67,996
810,27 1
598,029
77, 197
464,622
4,426
320,750
TOTAL lIA8Il1T1ES AND CAPITAL AC CO UNTS
4 weeks e nd e d
Oct. 5, 1966
ALL MEMBER BANKS
Oth e r bond s, corporat e stocks, and se curiti e s:
Pa rticipation ce rtificates in Fe deral
ag e nc y loan s 2 •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• • • ••••
All oth e r (includ ing co rpora te stocks) • •. . • • • •
Cash it e ms in process of coll e ction ••• • .. • • •• • •• •
Rese rv es with Fe d eral Re se rv e Bank • • •.• • • . • • • • •
Curr e ncy and coin • ••• . •. .•. • . • . •• • • .•.. • ••••
Ba lances with banks in th e United States • . ••• • . ••
Balances with ba nks in fore ign countries •• • • •. •• •
Oth e r a sse ts ••••.. •• . • • . ..• •. ••••• • •• . .•••••
Oth er liabilities . . .. . ........ .. ·· .. ·· .. · .. •·•
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS . .. .. ..... .. . .... . .... ..
4 weeks ended
Item
Eleve nt h Fed e ral Reserve District
(I n mi llions of dollars)
================================================~~~~
Item
Sept. 28,
1966
Aug. 31,
1966
Se pt. 29,
1965
-----------------------------------------------------------ASSETS
Loans a nd d iscounts l •• • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • •••
U.S. G ov e rnm e nt obligations • •• • • • . • •• .• .•
O ther securiti e s' • • • • •• • •. .• .•.. ••• .• ••••
Reserves with Fe d era l Reserve Bank •• • •.. ••
Cash in vault •• • • . •. • . • •• . ..• •• .•• •••••
Bala nces with b a nks in the United Stat es ••••
Balances with banks in for e ign countries c ....
Cash items in process of collection ••.•• •. . •
Oth er a ssets o • • • • . • ••. • •• • •. ••• ..•• •• ..
8,647
2,233
2,20 1
937
227
1,02 8
TOTAL ASSETs e . ... .. ......... ... .. .
16,629
6
867
483
8,560
2,246
2,171
918
220
999
6
840
446
LI ABILITIES AND CAPIT AL ACCOU NTS
Dema nd d eposits of banks .••...•• • ..•• . •
O ther deman d depo sits •• • •••••• • •• • •• • . •
Time de posits • • •.• • .. ••• • . •••• • . ••• . . .•
1,223
7,492
5,792
1,215
7,43 1
5,82 1
Tota l deposits •••• •• • • •..•• • ••••• ••••
Bo rrowings ••••••••• ••• • •.•• • .•• ••••• . •
O ther liabilities e • • • ..• • . . ••• . . .•• • ... ••
Tota l capital accounts e • •••.•• • • •••• • ••••
14,507
412
257
1,453
14,467
272
238
1,429
TOTAL LIAB ILITIES AN D CAPITAL
ACCOUNTse.. . .. • .. . • . . .. .. .. .. • •
16,629
16,406
8,232
2,4 17
1,8 14
899
212
1 ,09~
801
444
-1Mb\:
1,3 12
7,445
5,387
-
14,1 4 4
189
24 1
1,347
1Mb\:
----------------------------------------------------d
Beginni ng Ju ne 15, 1966, Comm odi ty Credi t Corporati o n certifica tes of in te res t o~"
1
Export·lmport Ba nk pa rticipa ti o ns are inc lu ded in " O ther se cu rities, "
.. Loans a nd d iscounts . "
e - Estim a ted.
rather th
BANK DEB ITS , END- O f - M ONTH DEPO SITS , AND DEPOSIT TURNOVER
(Dollar amounts in thou sands, seosonall y ad ius ted)
DEBITS TO DEMAND DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS'
DEMAND DEPOSITS'
Percent chang e
September
1966
(Annual- rote
August
Sept ember
statistical are a
basis)
1966
1965
ARIZON A, Tucson • • • ••.•••••...... . ••• ..........••..
LOUISIANA, Monroe ••. •..••....•••• • • . .. . •• .. . . ••. .
4,227,600
1,892,7 12
5,559,624
623,616
1,954,524
4,366,404
4, 185,288
5,36 9,892
1,366,860
3,99 1,464
287,004
66,339,084
5,016,864
14,592,000
2,143,596
61,980,084
594,276
3,745,344
1,599,384
1,238,076
838,848
11 ,727,384
1,037,016
1,540,296
1,947,408
2,025,300
NEW MEX ICO, Ro swell ' • . •• •.. . . .• . .. ...... •• . •• •.••
TEXAS, Abilene ••• • • , •.•..••. • ....• • .•• ....... . . ••••
Amarillo . . ....... .. .....•........ . . ... .. . ...
Austin .... . . . ...... ....... . . . . ... .....•... ..
Beaumont- Port Arthur . •. •.. . .. ••..•.. . .•••... .
Brownsville-Harling en. San Benito .•.. ........... .
Corpus Christi 3 ••••••••
Corsicana 2 ••
• ••••••••• • •••••••• •• • •
••• • •••• • • ••••••••••• ••• ••••• • ••
Da llas •••••• •• . .•. ••. ..•. ••• ...•.••. . • • ••• ••
EI Paso •.•••...••• • ..•. . . . ••....••.•..•••. . •
Fort Warth • •.....•......••• • .. ••••. . .. .•.. ••
~::t~~~.n.- ~~~~~ .~i~~ . :: ::: :::::::::::::::::::
laredo . ..... ... . ..... .... .. . . ... ... . ... , . ..
Lubbock •. ••• • .•. • . •••.•. . ..... . • •.• . • . ..•..
Midl and • • • •• •••.....•• •. . ••. . ...•..•. ••• • • •
O d essa .. . . . . .. ............................ .
~~~ ~~~~i~:: : :::::::: "" ":""::":::""::::::::
Texarka na {Texa s. Arkansas} . . . . ... ... .. . . . .... .
Tyler •••. •• •• • •••• ••.• • •.•.••..•••.•...•..• •
Wa co •.. .. . . .. ... .. . . ...... . .. . .. . . . . . .....
Wichita Falls • •.• •• •••• • • • • • •••.. •• •• ••• ••• • •
Total_26 centers • •• • • . • .• •••• . • ...•• • •• • .. .. •. .• • . •
of turnover
9 months,
Standa rd metropolitan
Shr eve port .. . ... . .......... . ..... . ......
Annua l rate
Septembe r I 966 from
- 6
-5
1
6
-6
1
84
6
-22
3
1
3
5
0
7
-6
4
- 11
-7
1
-4
1
-2
1
$2 10,189,948
1966 from
1965
14
6
13
-7
6
4
11
7
5
7
10
16
2
16
6
15
20
9
- 1
0
- 1
7
22
-3
5
7
10
11
5
9
10
9
13
9
8
13
17
3
11
3
14
11
7
-6
15
11
12
5
7
10
10
13
13
September 30,
1966
Septe mb er
August
Septemb~r
1966
1965
1965r
24.9
25.4
26.0
18.4
21.8
31.8
22.5
25.2
24.7
21.6
10.0
40.5
25.7
29.5
23.9
32 .2
19.8
23.9
13.8
18.8
15.3
23.8
19.1
18.8
18.5
18.6
23.8
26.3
27. 1
18.5
21.5
29.9
23.5
24 .9
14.7
20.8
13.0
39.2
24 .3
28.8
23.0
32.0
19.5
25.5
13.3
21.4
16.3
23.7
20. 1
18.4
19.4
17.7
23.5
23 .4
24.4
18.3
21.0
29.9
21.1
24.0
23.3
20.7
9.3
36.3
24.5
25.8
21.8
28.4
18.6
23.4
14.7
19.1
15.5
23.0
17.1
20.0
17.8
16.3
30.0
29 .6
27.3
176,569
72,077
212,377
34,165
88,459
137,270
183,599
2 14,66 1
57,800
184,905
28,658
1,645,518
187,932
497,654
89,4 26
1,913,294
31,287
152,918
115,734
65,59 1
54,395
489,5 10
53,874
82,018
106,662
107,363
$6,983,716
,~ Deposits of individua ls , partnerships, and corporation s and of states and political su bdivisions.
; Co unty ba.is.
RevIsed (1965 ) SMSA bounda ries.
r Revi sed.
V A LU E O f CO NSTRUCTIO N CONTRACTS
(In mi llions of doll ars )
GROSS DEMA ND AND TIME DEPO SITS OF M EM BE R BANKS
Eleve nth fe dera l Reserve Di strict
JanuarY-Se ptember
Area and type
Septemo er
1966
August
1966
September
1965
1966
1965
FIVE SOUTH WESTERN
STATES' .•......•..•.•••
Residential buil ding . ..... .
Nonresidential building ....
NonbuiJding construction .. .
UNITED STATES •• . . . . •••. . .
Resid entia l building ..... ..
Nonresidential building ....
Nonbuilding construction .. .
522
11 9
147
255
4,083
1,26 1
1,676
1,1 46
426
142
132
152
4,302
1,494
1,729
1,079
406
158
99
149 ,
4, 141 r
1,743r
1,464
934
3,994
1,498
1,26 1
1,235
39,62 1
14,659
14,975
9,987
4,024
1,61 5
1,367
1,042
37,682r
16,313r
12,955
8,414
(Averages of dail y flgures . In millions of dolla rs )
TIME DEPOSITS
GROSS DEMAN D DEPOSITS
Date
Tota l
Reserve
city banks
1964 , September.
1965: Septemb er .
1966, April • • ..••
May •... • •
June ... . . .
July • • • • • • •
August •• • •
September.
8,530
8,705
8,934
8,669
8,742
8,91 2
8,637
8,797
4,090
4, 11 9
4, 151
4,019
4,080
4,1 65
3,982
4,080
Country
banks
4,440
4,58 6
4,783
4,650
4,662
4,747
4,655
4,7 17
Total
Reserve
city bank.
Country
banks
4,689
5,347
5,797
5,795
5,704
5,734
5,764
5,736
2,354
2,6 16
2,78 1
2,743
2,667
2,660
2,670
2,634
2,335
2,731
3,016
3,052
3,037
3,074
3,094
3,102
Ari zona , Louisiana , New Mex ico, Oklahoma, and Te xas.
Revi sed.
NOTE . -- Detail s ma y not add to tota ls because of roundI ng.
SOURCE, F. W. Dodge Company.
1
r-
I N DUST RIA L PRODUCTION
DAI LY AVE RAGE PRODUCTION O f CRUDE O IL
(Seasonally adjustod indexes, 1957·59
(In th ousands of barre ls)
Area and type of ind ex
= 100)
Septem ber
1966p
August
1966
July
1966r
September
1965
148.7
165.4
178.4
156.7
117.5
185.3
146.1
162.2
175.3
153.4
117.0
175.2
145.6
160.7
170.7
154.0
11 5.7
189.6
136.1
149.9
156.9
145.2
108.3
178.4
158.2
160.4
168 .1
150.8
121.7
179.0
158.3
160.4
167.2
152.0
122.2
178.5
157.2
159.3
166.0
151.0
122.0
175.6
143.5r
145.2r
148.2
141.3
11 2.6r
165.3r
Pe rcent cha nge from
Septem ber
Se ptemb er August
Se ptemb er August
1965 __
__________A_r_ea____________l_9_
6~
6p
~______
~________________________
1966
1966p
1965
EL~VENTH
DiSTRiCT ... .. . ..
exas.. . ... . . .... . .. . ..
Gulf Coa st.... . .... . . .
West Texas.. . .. . . . . ..
East Texos (proper). . .. .
Pan han dle. •• • • • •• . . . •
S Rest of Sta te . • . . . . • • • .
Noulhea stern New Mexico . .
orthern l ouisiana. . . . . . . .
OUTSIDE elEVENTH DISTRICT
UNITE D STATES. . ....... ...
3,4 13.2
2,940.6
539.0
1,335.8
123.1
99.6
843 .1
300 .5
172 .1
4,886.5
8,299.7
3,391.8
2,924.2
535,6
1,327.9
123. 1
98.8
838.8
294 .9
172.7
4,859.7
8,25 1.5
3,140.9
2,705.7
505.6
1,252.4
108.9
92 .9
745.9
287.9
147.3
4,006.7
7,147.6
0.6
.6
.6
.6
.0
.8
.5
1.9
-.4
.6
.6
8.7
8.7
6.6
6.7
13.0
7.2
13.0
4.4
16.8
22 .0
16. 1
-------------------------------.----------------------------~ - Preli mi nary.
OU RCES , American Pe tro leum Institute .
U.S. 8ureau of Mines .
Federat Reserve Bank of Dallas.
TEXAS (1966 revision)'
Total in dustrial production ..... .
Manufacturing ........ . . ..... . .
Durable ...... ....... .. ......
Nondurable ... . ....... ... ... .
Mining .... .... . . ..... . .......
Utilities • .....• .•....... . ...• • •
UNITE D STATES
Total industrial production .... ..
Manufacturing . ... . . .. .... . . . . .
Durable . . . ... ............. ..
Nondu rable .... ...•.• .. ... ...
Mining ....... . . . . ..... . ..•...
Utilities . ............. . . .......
] Comparable back data are availabl e from th e Research Department of this Bank.
p - Preliminary.
r - Re vised.
SOURCES, Board of Governo rs of t he Federal Reserve System.
Fede ra l Rese rve 8ank of Dallas.
3
COTTON PRODUCTION
NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT
Five Southwestern Stotes '
Texas Crap Reporting Districts
(In tkousands of bales -
-
500 pounds gross weigkt)
Percent change
Sept. 1966 fr':.':
Number of persons
1966,
1966
indicated
0 $
percent of
Area
Oct. 1
1965
1964
1965
High Plains ..........
High Plains •••....•••
Plains .•.... •. .•....
Plains • • ..•.• • . •••..
9 - Coa stal Prairies .•..... .. .... .
10-N - South Texas Plains ••••..•••••
10-S - lower Rio Grande Valley •• ••• •
410
1,350
240
330
20
425
30
50
140
30
80
110
65
35
210
555
1,693
281
402
21
469
34
58
194
57
108
168
201
41
383
565
1,348
236
247
17
443
27
66
213
24
146
166
248
45
332
74
80
85
82
95
91
88
86
72
53
74
65
32
85
55
State ..........................
3,525
4,665
4,123
76
l -N
I·S
2·N
2-S
3
4
-
Northern
Southern
Red Bed
Red 8ed
- Western Cross Timb ers ........
- Black and Grand Prairies ... ...
S,N - East Texas Timbered Plains ....
5-S - East Texas Timb ered Plains ••. .
6
7
- Trans-Pecos .................
- Edwards Plateau .•.......•...
S·N - Southern Texas Prairies ...... .
8-S - Southern Texas Prairies ..•....
Type of employment
Aug.
1966
Sept.
1965
5,186,200
925,300
4,260,900
234,900
361,100
0.3
.1
.3
-1.0
-1.8
4.3
7.1
3.7
1.1
_.5
407,300
1,229,200
261,500
757,400
1,008,500
-.2
.0
-.5
-1.3
3.5
4.0
3.5
3.6
4.0
5.5
Septemb er
1966p
August
1966r
September
5,407,900
991,400
4,416,500
237,400
360,300
5,391,400
990,200
4,401,200
239,800
366,700
423,600
1,272,300
271,000
787,800
1,064,100
424,400
1,272,100
272,300
797,700
1,028,200
1965r
Total nonagricultural
wage and sa lary workers ••
Manufacturing .... .......
Nonmanufccturing . .. . ....
Mining .•.....••..... .
Construction •..••..••••
Tran sportation and
public utilities .... . •.•
Trad e •••.......•..•• •
Finance • .... .........•
Servic e .. ..... .. . . ... .
Governm en t . ..... . ....
1 Arizona, Louisiana, N ew Mexico, Oklahoma, and Te xas.
p r -
Preliminary.
Revised.
SOURCE, State e mployment agencies.
SOURCE, U.S. Department of Agrlculturo.
BUILDING PERM ITS
~
VALUATION (Dollar amounts In thousands)
CROP PRODUCTION
Percent change
(In tkousonds of buskels)
S.pt. 1966
NUM8ER
from
9 months,
TEXAS
9 mos.
1966
September
1966
495
5,645
$ 1,343
334
3,184
San Antonio .. •
Waco . . ......
Wichita Foil s ..
44
374
252
125
355
1,531
371
674
105
1,676
84
59
70
100
1,111
251
59
624
3,647
2,862
1,512
3,386
17,359
3,783
5,739
842
18,626
1,551
837
1,009
847
11,835
1,888
649
Total-19 cities ••
a.o70
85,825
FIVE SOUTHWESTERN STATES'
Area
1966,
Crop
Oct. 1
1965
Cotton ' •• . ..• . •.
Corn •.. ..••...•
Winter wheat ...•
Oats .. .• .......
3,525
19,872
66,825
22,148
2,508
496
21,672
329,450
720
3,169
370,500
4,440
1,170
23,000
4,665
19,371
72,630
21,975
2,698
377
21,714
285,740
940
3,065
299,250
2,921
1,280
62,000
Rice s••••...••••
Sorghum grain . ..
Flaxseed •••••••
Ha y· ...........
Peanutss........
Iri sh potato es &•..
~:c~e~s~~t.a.t~~~~.:
9 mos.
Average
estimated
1960-64
Oct. 1
4,480
27,935
62,436
21,503
6,292
354
15,838
230,073
955
2,363
225,323
2,637
1,112
31,600
4,980
28,074
171,688
30,111
24,507
1,252
42,710
381,844
720
8,386
613,590
8,236
5,055
86,000
Averag e
1965
6,616
29,596
212,716
31,019
25,914
1,305
40,512
334,512
940
8,348
523,625
5,813
6,104
121,400
1960-64
6,521
41,196
164,459
32,623
31,074
1,135
30,991
267,011
955
7,008
404,683
5,633
4,769
88,510
Arizona, Loui si ana, N ew Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas
, .
:.I In thousands of bogs containing 100 pounds each.
• In thousands of tons .
Ci In thousands of pounds.
o In thousands of hundredweight.
1
!l In thousands of boles.
SOURCE , U.S. Depart ment of Agriculture.
1966
Sept.
1965
$ 20,140
-34
-70
0
934
22,215
-68
-53
54
2,399
3,493
2,673
518
2,694
15,777
3,613
17,060
816
16,978
4,588
396
598
256
6,093
2,187
2,045
12,103
30,518
62,313
12,656
26,530
149,478
44,804
64,355
10,584
248,395
47,794
12,657
10,473
3,912
71,442
9,965
11,278
183
-3 1
-62
-59
-14
44
-42
154
-84
-43
62
-41
-49
-12
6
202
462
395
-30
-73
-52
45
-7
28
377
-56
-12
22
-40
-49
-30
25
157
56
6
15
24
_14
31
_2
5
48
80
2
53
2
-7
$871,612
-9
ARIZONA
Tucson . •.... "
LOUISIANA
Shreveport ••.•
TEXAS
Abil ene . .••...
Amarillo ....•.
Austin ..... . .•
Beaumont . . ...
Corpus Christi ..
Dallas ........
EI Paso .......
Fort Worth . • ..
Galveston ••.••
Houston ......
Lubbock •..•..
Midland .. •• ..
Od ess a ...• •..
Port Arthur ••••
ELEVENTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
~ Dallal Head Office Territor),
ID1ID HOUlton Branch Terrilor),
-I::!:;:::::I Son Antonio Branch Territory
~ Er POlO Branch Territory
1966 from
1965
Aug.
1966
1966,
estimated
8arley . • ••••••.
Ry . .......... . .
Sept.
1966
$84,461
---
-22
26
_42
23
10
-
@FedFRASER