I>385 LIBRARY School of Business 74th Congress 1 2d Session ) SENATE /Document t No. 213 RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM LETTER FROM THE ADMINISTEATOR OF THE EESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION TRANSMITTING IN RESPONSE TO SENATE RESOLUTION No. 295 A REPORT ON THE OBJECTIVES, ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND EFFECTS OF THE RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM May 12 (calendar day, May 13), 1936. — Referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and ordered to be printed with illustrations UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1936 0* In t LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Resettlement Administration, Office of the Administrator, Washington^ May 13 j 1936. Mr. Edwin A. Halsey, Secretary of the Senate, Dear Mr. Halsey: In response to Senate Resolution No. 295 dated May 8, 1936, I am sending you herewith a report covering in- formation requested in this Resolution. Sincerely yours, R. G. TuGWELL, Administrator. m CONTENTS Page Part I. Summary of the program 1-11 General 1-2 Land use 2-4 Resettlement 4-7 Rural rehabilitation 7-10 Statistical suinmary 10-11 Part II. Analysis of specific features of the program 11-24 Effects on taxation and real estate values 11-18 Effects on labor 19-22 Selection of project occupants 22-24 Part III. Resettlement Administration statistics 25-58 Land use 25-35 Resettlement 36-47 Rural rehabilitation - 48-58 Part IV. Graphic section 59-70 V FOREWORD This report has been prepared to cover information requested in Senate Kesolution 295, introduced by Senator W. Warren Barbour and agreed to by the United States Senate on May 8, 1936. The resolution stated: Resolved further j That the Resettlement Administration is requested to report to the Senate at the earliest practicable date — (1) The nature and extent of all expenditures made or proposed to be made by- such administiation (this subject is treated in part I and part III of this report). (2) The nature and extent of projects undertaken by it, and the advisability of undertaking future projects (this subject is treated in part I and part III of this report) . (3) The effect of each such project on State and local taxation and on local real estate values (this subject is treated in part II of this report). (4) The extent to which such projects have benefited and will benefit labor (this subject is treated in part II of this report) . (5) The circumstances relating to the securing of persons as tenants or pur- chasers in connection with such projects^ and the effect on such persons of becom- ing such tenants ©^purchasers (this subject is treated in part II of this report). Additional material, historical, statistical, and graphic, on the program of the Resettlement Administration, is presented in part I, part III, and part IV, of this report. vir REPORT ON THE OBJECTIVES, ACCOMPLISHMENTS, AND EFFECTS OF THE RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM REXFORD G. TUGWELL, ADMINISTRATOR [Prepared by Special Reports Section, Finance and Control Division] Part I. Summary of the Resettlement Administration Program GENERAL The problem. — During the years of the depression, more than a miUion farm families have been on direct relief, dependent at one time or another on local, State, or Federal Governments. A large number of these families are living on land so poorly adapted to its present use that it will not produce enough to afford an adequate American standard of living. Also, other families whose land is more productive have been severely handicapped by excessive financial burdens, uneconomical methods of farm and home manage- ment, and insufficient farming equipment. The conditions causing these families to be in need of aid have been developing over a period of decades, becoming intensified in the last few years. The causes. — The causes are chiefly three: (1) Mistaken policies of land settlement, especially the farming of submarginal land incap- able of providing an adequate livelihood; (2) recldess exploitation and exhaustion of lumbering, mining, and oil areas, with the result that the families dependent on these activities are left stranded; and (3)_^erfarming and overgrazing practices resulting in the destruclion of millions of acres through wind or soil erosion. Con- comitant causes of present distress were the purchase of farm land at ^'boom^' prices during and immediately following the World War; the spread of unfavorable tenant farming and share-cropping condi- tions; and, during the early thirties, the marked shift of population from city back to farm caused by widespread industrial unemploy- ment. Establishment of Resettlement Administration. — ^The responsibility for the alleviation of this farm-relief problem was placed upon the Re- settlement Administration by Executive Order No. 7027 on April 30, 1935. Accordingly, the activities of faux. Government agencies which had, in one way or another, been dealing with these problems were subsequently transferred to the Resettlement Administration. These agencies were the Division of Subsistence Homesteads of the Department of the Interior, the Division of Rural Rehabilitation of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the Land Program of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, and the Land Policy Section of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. 1 2 KESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM Under Executive Order No. 7027 the following functions were prescribed for the Resettlement Administration: (a) To administer approved projects involving resettlement of destitute or low-income families from rural and urban areas, including the establishment, maintenance, and operation, in such connection, of communities in rural and suburban areas. V (h) To initiate and administer a program of approved projects with respect to soil erosion, stream pollution, seacoast erosion, reforestation, forestation, and flood control. (c) To make loans as authorized under the said Emergency Relief Appro- priation Act of 1935 to finance, in whole or in part, the purchase of farm lands and necessary equipment by farmers, farm tenants, croppers, or farm laborers. The Resettlement Administration has concentrated its efforts on three closely related major programs: The land use program, the resettlement program, and the rural rehabilitation program. LAND USE For many years it has been realized that the land resources of the country were being employed in a wasteful manner. In the early nineteen hundreds this realization gained expression in the conserva- tion movement. This involves, however, a long-time program, look- ing largely to the future. It has gradually become apparent that worth-while immediate improvement can be secured through a more adequate and proper use of land. Severe floods and dust storms in recent years have shown graphically the need for a well-rounded land program. State land planning consultants have indicated to the National Resources Board that at least 100,000,000 acres of land now in agri- cultural use are submarginal and should be retired. The land acquisition program. — In 1934 there was initiated, under the direction of the land program of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, an extensive program of 268 submarginal land acquisition projects calling for the acquisition of approximately 20,000,000 acres. A total of $78,390,000 had been made available to this agency, but the requirements of the relief program made it neces- sary to rescind $50,000,000 of this fund. After the transfer of the land program of Federal Emergency Relief Administration to the Resettle- ment Administration on April 30, 1935, $20,000,000 was made avail- able for land purchase from Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935 funds. The total funds available for a land acquisition program were, therefore, $48,390,000. With this money, a program of 206 active projects, involving the purchase of approximately 9,300,000 acres of submarginal land throughout the United States, is under way. This land is being retired from its present uneconomic use; however, it will not lie idle. In many cases, land now being used unprofitably and to the actual detriment of the country^s resources can be converted to another type of agricultural utilization (e. g., grazing) and become a valuable asset. Other uses for land acquired under this program will be public forests, parks, recreational areas, wildlife sanctuaries, and Indian reservations. The initial step in the selection of a project is the definition of a ^^problem^^ area — that is, an area in which the conditions of land use demand readjustment. To facilitate the definition of such ^'problem^^ areas, land use specialists attached to the regional offices cooperate closely with the agricultural experiment KESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM 3 station in each of the States as well as with State planning boards, State conservation commissions, and other agencies concerned with land. Before final decision on the development of a project is made, the present economic status of the occupants of the land, the con- dition of the soil and native vegetation, including forest resources, and the need of the land for public purposes must be considered. With the ultimate use of the land in mind, it is necessary to explore its relationship to nearby towns and cities, to local public opinion, and to the attitude of various State official agencies. Special con- sideration is given to the cost of the land and to the possibility of relieving unemployment by the development work on such a project. After it is decided to proceed, the boundaries of the project are care- fully defined and proposals to sell land within the purchase area are secured. The solicitors of the proposals are instructed as to the probable values of the various properties. After a sufficient number of proposals have been obtained to insure that the project can be completed, the individual tracts are appraised by expert appraisers, and the owners are then asked to sign a formal ofi;er to sell land to the Federal Government on t iiG basis o f the appraised value. When a sufficient number of such formal offers are available, they are sub- mitted to the Washington office for acceptance. It is then necessary to determine whether the title is suflSciently clear to permit the transfer of the land to the United States in fee simple. This process has been found to require a considerable period of time. The Federal Government has never before undertaken to acquire so large an amount of land in so short a period, and the volume of work involv^ed has placed an unusual burden on the various administrative agencies affected. Three major departments of the Federal Government are concerned; namely, the Department of Justice, the Comptroller General, and the Treasury Department. The Department of Justice must be satisfied that the title is free from defects. The Comptroller General must be satisfied that au- thority at law exists for the acquisition of each tract, that the money is being spent for a title that is free from serious defects, and that the various reservations such as mineral reservations which may have been stipulated in each transaction not only are legally justified but also are consonant with the purpose of each project and the interests of the United States. Such requirements have naturally caused considerable periods of delay in payment. Under the land acquisition phase of the land use program, as of April 15, 1936, a total of 9,670,000 acres was under option in the field and options on 8,469,000 acres, costing $36,344,000, had become accepted legal commitments. As of that date, site acquisition accounts on 2,560,000 acres had been forwarded to the General Accounting Office; and cases involving 1,244,000 acres had been closed. Alto- gether, as of April 15, 1936, $42,427,739 of the $48,390,000 fund available for this program had been encumbered. Land development program. — After a land acquisition project has been established and land appraisal and optioning are well under way, proyisions are made for the ultimate development and use of the land. The estimated cost of the land development work neces- sary on land purchased in connection with 141 of these acquisition projects is $40^361,676. The Resettlement Administration has received $18,000,000 for land development work to date. This work 4 RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATIOK PROGRAM consists of planting trees, building fire towers, cutting fire lanes, thinning and improvement cutting, constructing check dams or terracing to correct erosion, constructing reservoirs for recreational purposes or for the conservation of wildlife, stream improvement, road building, the restoring of range grasses, and the construction of recreational and administrative buildings. , Under this phase of the program, there was, as of May 1, 1936, a total of 59,521 persons (including 3,581 C. C. C. men) employed on 134 land development projects. As of April 15, 1936, $9,242,742 of the $18,000,000 available had become encumbered. Continuation of program. — It is expected that additional funds amounting to $2,351,000 for land acquisition and approximately $7,300,000 for land development v/ill be made available bo the Re- settlement Administration shortly and that these funds, together with other land use funds, will have been completely encumbered by June 30, 1936. By the expenditure of these funds and the purchase of approxi- mately 9,300,000 acres, a beginning, will have been made in facing the fundamental land problem. However, as previously indicated, there are approximately 100,000,000 acres of land which should be retired from their present use if the natural wealth of the land is to be preserved and to be protected from destructive wind and water erosion. Recently a thorough survey was made in the field to determine that acreage which it would be most beneficial to acquire if additional funds were secured. It w^as indicated that the purchase of approximately 24,000,000 acres would be needed to ^'block in'' and '^round out'' the existing projects and to establish a minimum number of new projects. Families living on submarginal land. — The farming of submarginal land is not only detrimental to the land, but also to those families who attempt unsuccessfully to provide themselves with an adequate living from it. It is estimated that the number of farm families thus unfortunately situated ranges from 600,000 to 650,000. There are 16,835 families now living on the lands which are being bought. On the basis of a survey involving more than 13,000 of these families the average gross income per family in 1934 was only $289, including $72 obtained from relief and other such sources. Fort y-se ven percent of the families were on relief. The average net incom_e of tEese families — that is, deducting cash expenses such as feed, seed, fertilizers, interest on debt, and taxes — ^was only $88. A necessary supplement to the program of land retirement is, of course, the resettlement or rehabilitation of the families whose land is acquired. Approximately 6^600 of these families are dependent upon the Resettlement Administration for assistance in resettling. RESETTLEMENT Rural resettlement. — Basically, the resettlement program is an attempt to create a new type of frontier; not a new geographic frontier, but a frontier of farm independence for those who wish to avail themselves of new opportunities in rural areas. Projects under this program are highly diversified, being planned in accordance with particular local needs. RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM 5 The resettlement program may be divided into three phases: (1) The completion of certain rural communities initiated by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, or by the Division of Subsistence Homesteads of the Department of the Interior; (2j_the initiation of new rural resettlement projects; and (3)_the initiation of a program involving the construction of suburban resettlement projects. Completion oj subsistence homestead projects. — On May 15^ 19Si5, 'the program carried on by the Subsistence Homesteads I5ivis^ oLthe Department of the Interior was transferred to the Kesettlement Administration by Executive Ordej 7041, Of the $25,000,000 which had been allocated to the Departmeiil of the Interior for construction of subsistence homestead projects, only about $7,000,000 was expended or committed to May 15. The remaining $18,0(1Q^OOO was transferred to the Resettlement Administration, but $io,000,000 of this amount had been impounded by the President on December 29, 1934. This $10,000,000 was released to the Treasury by the Resettle- ment Administration on March 16, 1936. Approximately $2,000,000 of the $8,000,000 unimpounded balance was encumbered by the Resettlement Administration before June 16, 1935, after which date the unencumbered and unimpounded balance of the old Subsistence Homesteads Division's funds could no longer be expended. On June 24, 1935, $7,000,000 of Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935 funds were made available to the Resettlement Administration for the completion of 33 subsistence homestead projects. Regarding theseSS projects, as of April 30, 1936, the Resettlement Administration had completed construction on 18^,;projects; construc- tion was in progress on 11 projects; and final plans were being pre- pared on 3- projects. Other former subsistence homestead projects will be financed from other funds available to the Resettlement Admin- istration. This has been done in the case of 17 projects where the Administrator has requested the preparation of final plans. Con- struction on some of these 17 projects has been started. The subsistence homestead projects were designed to be demon- stration farm and home communities for low-income industrial em- ployees, providing them with the opportunity of raising their stand- ards of living through the home production of a large portion of family food requirements. Initiation oj new rural resettlement projects. — The rural resettlement projects being initiated by the Resettlement Administration can be divided into five different classes. In 36 projects, resettlement wdll be an infiltration process where the farm units to be established are to be interspersed among existing farms. Individual farms are purchased from the Federal Land Bank, from those who wish to retire from farming, and others, and will then be improved and either sold or leased to farmers who are being removed from land use areas where they have been struggling for existence on lands unsuited for agricul- tural development. These inffltration projects are located largely in the New England and Middle H^stern States where the farm unit pattern is well established and where it is difficult to secure large areas in solid blocks. In 15 other projects the infiltration method will be modified to the extent that the farms being purchased will be grouped quite definitely within existing rural communities, and the development of community and cooperative services for the existing communiti^ will be sponsored by the Resettlement Administration. 6 KESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM Thirty-five projects will be of the '^close comraunity^^ type where the land is assembled in one block. In these cases plans are being made not only for the farms but for joint facilities as well. In 30 cases the land will be subdivided according to standard practice where the farm homes will be located on individual tracts. The needs of the communities, including both new settlers and old residents, will be studied and community facilities provided. The necessary functional cooperative organizations will be organized to take care' of cooperative activity, including buying, marketing, processing, and the supplying of utility service. Other projects will provide garden homes for industrial and agri- cultural workers. The garden farms are being developed with the idea of giving farm and industrial laborers some security and stability by providing low-cost housing and by increasing their net return through the production of garden truck, dairy products, and poultry products, and by canning fruits and vegetables for home consumption. Three labor_camps are being constructed in California to provide minimum requirements for a decent living for ifiherant laborers in that State. Fifty-seven percent of those making a living in agri- culture in California are laborers. The living conditions of this group are extremely bad. The camps will provide hot and cold shower baths, flush toilets, stationery washtrays, and in some cases gas plates for cooking. Medical care, recreational areas, and areas for garden- truck farming will be provided. These camps will accommodate four to five thousand itinerant families during the season, each camp providing space for from two to three hundred families at one time. Altogether (including former subsistence homestead projects) the development of about 140 rural resettlement projects is contemplated by the Resettlement Administration at a total cost (including ex- penditures by previous agencies) of approximately $92,000,000. These projects will accommodate more than 17,000 families. As of Ma y 1^ l^projects had been completed and ^ were under construction with §7640 men working. Up to April 1 ^approximately $43,000,000, of which more than $18,400,000 has been expended or encumbered, has been made available for rural resettlement projects. Continuation of the rural resettlement program, — Two- thirds of the families in the United States are in a low-income group. In 1929, 915,541 farmers in the United States had gross inconies of less than $4^0t>^ncluding thl'value of the products raised on the farm for home consumption." The purchasing power of this group is so small that the group contributes little to the economic life of the country, either as producers of raw material or as consumers of manufactured articles. They buy a minimum of the products which industry has to sell and the community serving the group is necessarily limited by the low purchasing power of the farm population. To raise the standard of living" of this group and to increase their purchasing power is a major task of the Resettlement Administration. The present program will demonstrate the fact that resettlement is a profitable undertaking where families are moved from poor land to good land, are sold farms that are large enough to yield a satisfactory gross income under supervision, and where 3-percent money enables the purchaser to enjoy immediately a higher standard of living. The National Resources Board states that there are between 600,000 and 650,000 farm families living on submarginal land at RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM 7 present. If this problem of agriculture is to be met, tliis group should be resettled. An important group, which can be benefited by resettlement, is the group of young people estimated at 2,000,000, who under pre- depression condTfions would have moved to town to find work out who are backed up onT£K*^farm with no security and little hope for the future. The Resettlement Administration offers a needed oppor- tunity for these young people, many of whom have been trained in agriculture in high schools or through the various extension-service activities. Suburban resettlement program, — In addition, the Resettlement Administration has undertaken a program of suburban resettlement demonstration projects in the vicinity of four congested areas, to pro- vide homes for low-income industrial and farm families. These projects are located in the vicinity of Berwyn, Md.; Bound Brook, N. J. Milwaukee, Wis.; and Cincinnati, Ohio. They are demonstra- tions of the combined advantages of country and city life for low- income rural and industrial families. They provide the living facilities and utilities common to cities, together with farms, gardens, and natural wooded and other recreational areas. These projects entail the construction of a total of 3,500 units at present and are financed from a fund of $31,000,000 under the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935. The projects are so designed that the land now being acquired is sufficiently large in extent to provide room for the con- struction of an additional 13,200 housing units if additional funds become available. Three of these projects are now under construc- tion, and topographical survey work is in progress on the remaining project. A total of 36,785 acres was under option as of May 1, 1936, and 2,948 workers were employed on these projects. x\s this program reaches its peak of construction activity, more than 20,000 men will receive employment. As of April 15, $10,452,240 of the $31,000,000 available was encumbered and it is expected that by June 30, 1936, $22,500,000 of this fund will have been encumbered. A project schedule of eight suburban resettlement projects involving a cost of $68,000,000 was submitted to the President and approved by him on September 23, 1935. However, only $31,000,000 was allo- cated to the Resettlement Administration for this program. If sufficient additional funds become available present projects can be enlarged and new projects near congested areas can be initiated. RURAL REHABILITATION ^ Loans and grants to individuals. — This program is designed to assist that large group of needy farm families who are not in need of re- settlement; whose land is of fair or good quality; but whose income is insufficient to provide a satisfactory standard of living. The Kesettlement Administration will have cared for more than SOOfiOO farm families by June 30, 1936, under the rural rehabilitation pro- gram. Five hundred and twenty-six thousand two hundred and thirty-seven cases were under care during March 1936. It is estimated that the total number of different farm families aided under this program through May 1, 1936, was 781,237. Clients in one classification are listed as ''farm-plan" clients. Loans are made under supervised ''farm plans" to these farmers who, it is 8 BESETTLEHENT ADMINISTRATIOl^ PROGRAM believed, can become self-supporting through a loan from the Gov- ernment for the purchase of feed, seed, fertilizer, work animals and other livestock, farm equipment, and other tools needed for the successful operation of the farm. Under a ^^home plan'' prepared in conjunction with the ^^farm plan'', provision is also made for the subsistence needs of the family. The loan for nonrecoverable goods purchased with the money advanced by the Government is secured by a lien on the crop to be grown and that for recoverable goods by a chattel mortgage on the livestock, farm equipment, or other goods purchased. The loan obviously is not a bankable loan, but because of the care and soundness with which the farm plan is prepared and the guidance given, a large majority of loans provide adequate security. Farmers, under established procedures, are ineligible for a loan if they can obtain loans through regular commercial channels such as the Federal land bank, The Production Credit Corporation or any other private or governmental agency. It is believed that in the majority of ^'farm plan" cases the necessary amount to be advanced for the permanent rehabilitation of the client will be the equivalent of direct relief payments over not more than 12 to 18 months. When it is not possible to evolve a satisfactory farm plan for a distressed farm family, grants are made for immediate subsistence needs. Clients in this classification are listed as ^^emer- gency" clients. In some cases, clients who receive loans may also receive grants preparatory to the operation of their farm plans; and clients who were at one time ^'emergency" clients may later become '^farm plan" clients. For its rehabilitation advances to individual clients, the Resettle- ment Administration will expend approximately $106,000,000 through June 30, 1936. Against these funds, vouchers for loans aggregating $57,616,234 had been certified as of April 29, 1936, while vouchers for grants totaling $13,033,108 had been certified as of the same date. In addition, there was as of April 24, a total of $14,854,576 in unpaid loan commitments scheduled for future payment. This makes the fund of $106,000,000 encumbered to the extent of $85,503,918. Farm debt adjustment semce.— Since September of 1935 the Reset- tlement Administration has been able to give considerable aid to indebted farmers under the farm debt adjustment phase of the rural rehabilitation program. This was made possible through a $2,000,000 allocation for the purpose of setting up a farm debt adjustment pro- gram. This involves the calling together of farmers and their creditors with a view to working out methods and means of reducing the farm- er's indebtedness and alleviating his financial situation. There are about 12,000 persons who serve as State and county farm debt adjust- ment committeemen whose duty is to call the meetings, supervise the proceedings, and oversee the adjustment of the farmer's debts. These committeemen receive only a small per-diem rate for the time actually served and are augmented by a permanent personnel of 229 persons directly employed by the Resettlement Administration. Rehabilitation work is greatly aided by the farm debt adjustment program. In many cases it would have been extremely difficult to work out a sound farm plan if it had not been possible first to reduce the indebtedness of clients. This program is not only of value to the farmers but also benefits their creditors since it makes possible the liquidation of long-overdue debts on a sound basis. BESETTLEMENT ADMINISTKATION PROGRAM 9 From September 1, 1935, to March Sfl, 1936, adjustments were made in 17,505 cases resulting in a total debt reduction of $16,076,198 in $62,506,011 worth of debts. This was a 26 percent reduction. These settlements caused $1,061,127 of taxes to be paid. At the close of March there were 22,016 pending cases under consideration. Community and cooperative services. — There are also carried on under the rural rehabilitation program community and cooperative service activities. These have been allowed to proceed more slowly than the loan, grant, and farm debt adjustment programs. The need for haste is less, and more care is needed in preparation of the plan for such a loan. The purpose of this program is primarily to provide supplemental income for the destitute and low-income farm families who require public aid and are clients of the Resettlement Adminis- tration. The community type of loan is an extension of the individual farm plan loan program, affording aid to clients to purchase in groups, farm and home supplies, equipments, and services that are needed in profitable operation of the farms which clients cannot afford to buy individually. The cooperative loan includes the usual forms of agri- cultural cooperative activities, that is, loans for producing, processing and marketing. Loans are made either to cooperative associations or to individual clients to participate therein. Only five loans to cooperatives have been closed. However, 34 other projects of this type for soil erosion and soil conservation, irriga- tion, terracing, canning, and marketing have been submitted, and the plans are now undergoing final analysis in Washington. It is esti- mated that the loans made under this program will be approximately $5,100,000. Continuation of the program. — By the expenditure of $113,100,000 under the supervision of the Resettlement Administration, this cur- rent fiscal year, about 800,000 farm families will have been cared for, kept off the relief rolls, and given a new start. Despite these efforts there are still several hundred thousand farm families needing rehabili- tation assistance. It has been estimated that applications from about 100,000 farm operators have been received this current year for whom funds had not been provided. The unapproved applications re- quested funds to the extent of $35,000,000 to $40,000,000. In addi- tion to these applications it is estimated that about 225,000 farm families are now receiving employment under the W. P. A., most of whom would be eligible for some type of rehabilitation loan. If these famiUes required initial loans of $300 each, it would require $67,500,000 to service them during the first year of the rehabilitation process. Many of the present rehabilitants, while needing less aid next year than they received this current fiscal year, will, nevertheless, need some additional assistance before the process of rehabiUtation can be said to be complete from the financial point of view. It is probable that 600,000 families will require at lea^t $100 on the average or $60,000,000. In other words, a complete rehabilitation program for the following year would require a minimum of $167,500,000. If the rural rehabilitation program is equipped to include a ^'farm- ownership'' program, further funds will be required. Many of the families receiving rehabilitation advances do not own the land that they operate but experience with them reveals that they possess cer- tain qualities that make them potential landowner operators. It is the desire of the Resettlement Administration, through its rural 67891—36 2 10 RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM rehabilitation program, to assist such successful clients toward land ownership. If additional funds are niade available it is estimated that as many as 20,000 farmers, now poor renters, could be set up as efficient owner-operators within the next year. Table 1.- — Status of Resettlement Administration program Land acquisition: Number of acres on which options have become legal commitments- Number of acres purchased and paid for Land development: Number of men working on projects.--. Rural resettlement: Number of active » projects Number of men working Number of homes planned — Suburban resettlement: Number of acres on which options accepted Number of men working Rural rehabilitation loans and grants: Gases under care 9 Loans certified: During week _ Cumulative Loan commitments — Grants certified: During week : _ Cumulative Tarm debt adjustment: Number of cases adjusted: During month Cumulative Amount of debt reduction: During month « Cumulative- Employment: Number of men working on projects Latest Month pre- vious 4 months previous Percent increase latest period over- Month previous 4 months previous 1 8, 468, 518 8, 285, 000 6, 989, 126 2.2 41.4 1 1, 244, 047 1, 178, 000 792 161 5.6 67.0 2 59, 521 62, 639 11, 337 13.1 425.0 2 95 2 8, 640 2 10, 705 83 7, 497 7,472 48 3, 618 4,633 14.6 16.2 43.2 97,9 138.8 131.1 2 36, 785 2 2, 948 36, 786 1, 692 6,043 1, 131 629.4 74.2 ]60.7 3 526, 237 600, 966 333, 193 5.0 57.9 4 $4, 069, 407 5 $57, 616, 234 6 $69, 784, 630 $3, 733, 981 $36, 990, 683 $48, 270, 746 $797,094 $7, 763, 929 $15, 547, 360 9.0 55.8 44.6 410.6 642.1 348. 9 * $420, 573 « $13, 033, 1C8 $746, 502 $11, 108, 355 $787, 348 $2, 376, 914 -77.6 17.3 -87. 2 448.3 3 7, 301 7 17, 505 3 $3, 331, 062 7 $16, 076, 198 2 71, 109 3,480 10, 204 $2, 900, 384 $12, 745, 136 61, 828 109.8 71.6 '"""378.'i 14.8 26.1 147.6 16,086 16.0 342.1 1 As of Apr. 15. 2 As of May 1. 3 During March. < Week ending May 1. 6 Cumulative through Apr. 29. « Cumulative through Apr. 24. 7 Cumulative through March. 8 Active rural resettlement projects include all rural resettlement projects which have been completed, which are under construction, or for, which final plans have been approved by the Administrator. » This represents the number of cases under the care of the Resettlement Administration during the month of March only, and does not include approximately 180,000 farm fariiilies which are no longer being aided by the Resettlement Administration, but which have been under its care in the past. It is estimated that between the end of March and the beginning of May 75,000 additional cases have been aided by the Reset- tlement Administration. This would bring the total number of farm families which have been clients of the Resettlement Administration through May 1, 1936, to 781,237. 10 The latest figures given in the table above are as of those dates for which detailed State break-downs were available for use in part III of this report. More recent figures for the United States totals show, as of May 1, total loan commitments amounting to $86,925,426; and, as of May 6, loan vouchers certified of $61,312,834, and grant vouchers certified of $13,514,071. The following tabulation shows the funds available, the expendi- tures, and the net encumbrances (expenditures plus unpaid commit- ments) made against these funds by the Resettlement Administration. In the following table, all figures for cents have been dropped. This will cause minor discrepancies between the totals given below and the actual totals of the columns below. Based on reports from the field, it is estimated that, as of April 30, 1936, the funds listed below as available to the Resettlement Administration were encumbered to the extent of approximately $190,400,000. BESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM 11 Table 2.— Status of Resettlement Administration funds as of Apr. IS, 1936 «Admin- istrative personnel engaged in activ- ity in Washing- ton and field 1 Funds available Expendi- tures Net encum- brances Unencum- bered balance Land use - 884 324 8, 668 6, 928 Land acquisition Land development Resettlement— - - -- $44, 120, 328 18, 000, 000 2 $9, 449, 694 4, 285, 751 $38, 158, 067 9, 242, 742 $5, 962, 261 8, 757, 258 Rural resettlements -^—-^ Suburban resettl^Bmerit HiHral rehabilitation- 36, 125, 458 31,000j00d 3 7, 380, 855 2, 812,919 11, 691, 280 10, 452, 240 24, 434, 177 20, 547, 759 Loans to clients and rehabilitation Farm debt adjustment adminis- Miscellaneous 95, 448, 696 18, 352, 854 2, 000, 000 50, 167, 185 12, 187, 506 250, 958 64, 629, 568 12, 187, 506 586, 740 30, 819, 027 6, 165, 347 1, 413, 259 Administrative expenses Total - — - 5,000 520, 010 27, 697 29, 950, 000 0 0 0 18, 844, 134 0 0 0 26, 143, 689 5, 000 520, 010 27, 697 3, 806, 310 15,804 275,549,944 105,379, 005 173, 091, 832 102, 458, 112 1 Employee figures are based on the pay period Apr. 1-15, 1936. The average annual salary of employees employed during the pay period Mar. 1-15, inclusive, was $1,470. Included in the total figure for employees given in -the above table are approximately 4,000 temporary employees who were appointed for perods ranging from 30 to 120 days in connection with the rural rehabilitation loan program. These employees will be terminated as soon as the planting season is over in the various States. No salary higher than $8,000 per annum is paid in the Resettlement Administration. There are 8 persons receiving $8,000, and within the salary range from $7,000 to $7,999 there are also only 8 persons. All positions in the Resettle- ment Administration in Washington are classified by the Civil Service Commission. 3 Excludes $4,2^9,672 of the $28,390,000 funds available to the land program. Federal Emergency Relief Administration, which was encumbered by the land program. Federal Emergency Relief Administration, prior to Apr. 30, 1935. 3 Excludes $6,724,265 of the original allocation of $25,000,000 to Subsistence Homesteads Division, which was encumbered by Subsistence Homesteads Division prior to May 16, 1935. Part II. Analysis of Specific Features of the Kesettlement Administration Program effects of resettlement program on state AND LOCAL TAXATION AND ON LOCAL REAL ESTATE VALUES Land use. — In practically all cases where submarginal lands are purchased by the Resettlement Administration for the purpose of taking such land out of unprofitable cultivation and for conversion to more socially desirable uses, pr oblem s involving State and local taxation. should not often arise, since such lands^ aFa rut^^^^ already in taxjbrrears. Instead of affording revenue, they constitute a real burden to the States and localities because of the necessity of pro- viding relief for the occupants of these lands and because certain municipal services, such as school systems, police protection, and roads must be mriritained for the people residing on them, even though the productivity of such land is so low that the residents are unable to meet their tax charges. The activities of the Resettlement Administration result in d efinite benefits to the States and localities affected, since the resettling of the stranded and destitute residents of these submarginal lands, on the one hand, decreases the relief burden and, on the other hand, makes it possible for the localities to^reduce expenditures in connection with municipal service. / The effects on particular localities of Federal land purchases and attendant tax^exemptions are "determined By such factors as the 12 RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM present size of the tax base and its composition, the scope and con- centration of land purchases, the valuation of these properties, the extent of past tax delinquency on the properties, the degree of local dependence on the general property tax, the extent and type of State support through grants-in-aid for particular functions, the receipts from delinquent taxes and from the sale of tax-delinquent land, and the current fiscal condition of the taxing units. Taking all these factors into consideration, in most cases savings in cost to the local government through resettlement should exceed actual losses in revenue. The exhaustion of previous sources of tax revenue, such as forests or mineral lands, usually causes excessive and chronic tax delin- quency on property no longer attractive to private ownership. This results in increasing burdens being thrown upon taxpaying proper- ties, forcing many of them into the same unfavorable status. In the land purc hase areas, reductions in the tax base will not be reflected in proportionate decreases in tax revenue, since it is largely, from the very nature of the. program, the dead or nonpayiog pmRejrtxj^^ is being acquired. Where the costs of local roads, schools, and other services are in a large degree underwritten by the State or county through a system of subventions or grants-in-aid, the need for resettlement of scattered families is often a matter of county or State-wide concern. In many instances, the continued existence of present scattered uneconomic settlement can be largely attributed to the continuance by the State of necessary grants-in-aid. The summaries which follow are derived from more detailed studies made in the field and indicate the variety of influence exerted on local governments. Where ^local revenues are derived chiefly from the general property tax and the tax base is low, the effect of land pur- chases may somewhat impair operations of local governments or their abiliiby to service outstanding debt. In such cases, receipts through delinquent taxes, being paid by the vendor of submarginal land to the Government, may be suflScient to offset such debts or to provide funds for local governmental services. Usually, however, revenue from the land under its new use, such as grazing or forestry, will be necessary to sustain local government. Assuming that grazing revenue will be shared with local governments, it will be the principal dependable compensating revenue source of immediate significance. Sandhills project , LA-NC-S, Richmond, Montgomery , Moore j Scot- land, Hoke Counties, N. C. — 60,000 acres— In North Carolina, the ' State supports the entire minimum school program, pays the teachers^ salaries, and owns and pays for most of the cost of operating school busses. The power to consolidate and locate schools is vested m the State school commission which draws up State-wide plans for school location and transportation. The entire highway and road system is also State financed and maintained. Except for certain special school districts, the only property taxes levied in former school dis- tricts and townships are for the service of outstanding debt. Hoke County has assumed both the township-road and the school-district debts. Moore and Richmond have assumed the township-road debt^ but Scotland County has assumed neither type of debt. A purchase program ui such a situation raises no complicated prob- lem of local government adjustments and involves no serious impair- RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM 13 ment of local property-tax revenues. Local property relief has pro- ceeded so far through State assumption of school and road functions that considerable leeway exists for readjustment of local rates for services on outstanding debt and for general governmental functions. Changes in the location of schools and in the maintenance of roads will be made by the State and any savings will be absorbed in the State fiscal system. The bulk of purchased properties are located in Richmond and Scotland Counties. In a few cases, former school districts and townships which have debt outstanding and unassumed by counties will find revenues impaired by purchase. But delinquent taxes collected against land purchases will provide some cushion for declin- ing revenues in these districts, since delinquency has been heavy for a considerable period on many properties purchased. According to the best estimates, the tax base of the various counties affected by the proposed land purchases will in no case be reduced by more than 3.2 percent. The loss of revenue will be much less in proportion, due to long-term delinquency on properties involved. Consolidated schools serving the purchase area are largely located along highways bordering it. Schools to be discontinued will be mainly of the one- teacher type serving Negro families. Any savings or additional costs will be absorbed by the State, which may change transportation routes as required and utilize abandoned school buildings. Central Wisconsin game project, LA-WI-B, Wood, Moriroe, Jackson, Juneau Counties^, Wis, — 94,^56 acres. — The purchase area in Jackson and Juneau Counties is characterized by high tax delinquency and declining tax base. State and county school aids and State aids to town roads are heavy, usually exceeding taxes realized from the area. The reduction in county-tax bases by purchase will not be severe, although several towns will experience reductions. Substantial delinquent-tax collections and proceeds from sale of county-tax title land will accrue to the counties. In Jackson County, at least, it is immaterial to the county whether the purchase area is included in or excluded from its tax base because of county-aid payments to the area offsetting any tax revenue derived from it. Zaleski forest and rehabilitation project, LA-OH-5, Vinton County, Ohio— 16 ,236 acres. — In Ohio, townships administer relief and main- tain township-road systems. A liberal State equaUzation law for school support is provided, accompanied by active State control over school-district administration. More than 60 percent of the 1933-34 school receipts in the purchase area was derived from State-aid sources. Schools may be closed and consoUdated in and around sparsely settled and declining purchase areas at savings to the State. The State distributes locally a proportion of gasoUne and motor- vehicle tax revenues. The township share of the gasoline tax is divided equally among townships and represents a large item in their total receipts. The closing of township roads in purchase areas would release funds to be spent on improved mileage. The purchases in Vinton County would reduce the county tax base by 2.36 percent. The location of valuable public-utility property in the county makes the effect on county revenues less significant. Township revenues would be reduced by 2.9 percent, and school-district revenues by 0.01 to 9.06 percent. State aids would compensate for any loss of school-district revenues in the face of continuing costs, while county and township revenues from gasoHne and motor-vehicle taxes would 14 RESETTLEMENT ADMmiSTRATIOF PROGRAM be unimpaired. Approximately $2,435 might be saved in township rehef and road costs. A total of $6,172 in delinquent taxes would be received by the various units. Probably no schools would be closed as a result of the program, but consolidation of several schools might be achieved under State direction. Cheyenne River project, LA-ND~6, Ransom and Richland Counties , N. Dak. — 61j798 acres. — Tax dehnquency in the purchase area is high. Fifty percent of the optioned acreage has been delinquent for more than 1 year. Contemplated purchases would reduce the county tax base by 2.52 percent in Ransom and 0.75 percent in Richland, but the loss in effective tax base would be much less, in view of past tax delinquency. Estimated receipts from grazing fees at 2.95 cents per acre for grazing land and 42.4 cents per acre for crop and hay land indicate that one-third of the revenue would be sufficient to equal a 5-year average of taxes paid on land purchased. Townships are likely to reduce road expenditures in proportion to tax receipts, since the maximum road levy is being made. Four schools may be closed, and it is suggested that the Federal Government move one school and repair 3 miles of road for a bus route. One school consoUdation also appears possible. It is estimated that opportunities for school abandonment and consoHdation offer annual savings approximating $4,600. Rural Resettlement. — Rural Resettlemejit„proxects are necessar- ily withdrawn from local taxation while the land involved in the proj- ect area is Being assembled and during the construction of the project. Expenditures for ma terto^ and l^hm^^^^ioK s^^^ during this period, compensM0^..thc> .GQnir^^ for any temporary decrease in tax receipts. The project property again becomes taxable when families have moved into their new hame^teads, and when conveyance of the project has been made by the Federal Government to an incor- porated as^s^ociation^^^Q^^ homesteaders. The improvements brought about by the construction of resettlement projects allow project properties to be assessed at a higher value than that obtaining prior to such improvements. Taxes are paid in a lump sum by the cor- porations, the corporations in turn collecting the taxes in monthly installments from the individual homesteaders. The increase in the tax base will tend to balance any increase in the cost of local services. Infiltration projects, where clients are resettled on farms in existing farm communities, would probably require little additional local governmental expenditure, any increase in expenditures being con- fined primarily to the expansion of educational facilities. The available, evidence. would indicate that the effect of resettle- ment comi6unities on real estate values is very favorable. At El Monte, Calif., all land surrounding the project has been acquired by real estate developers and offered for sale in 1 -acre plots at twice the price paid by the Govemnxent for the land devotedio th^M J^onte projeict. At Longview, Wash., some of the land adjoining the project has commanded offers of two and one-half times the price at which the Government secured its holdings. The following detailed summaries illustrate the effects of certain particular projects on local taxation and local real estate values: 1. El Monte J Calif. — The original cost of the land was at the rate of $500 per acre for 100 acres. Prior to its purchase by the Govern- ment, this property was unimproved and, from the best available information and statistics, returned to the State of California from RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM 15 $800 to $1,200 per year in taxes. It is estimated that the taxes for the El Monte project will be approximately $3,641 for the coming year. According to data on file, real estate activity has been stimulated by reason of the location of the project. A local real estate broker advises that he is now subdividing and selling lots in the immediate vicinity of the project for an average of $1,000 an acre. Other local real estate brokers advise that in the past year there has been con- siderable increase in their sales of real estate in the vicinity of El Monte; that the project created an interest in the county and caused thousands of people to visit this section. Many persons who have been unable to obtain property from the Administration have pur- chased lots in the vicinity and constructed their own homes, follow- ing the program outlined for the families on the Government proj - ect. Brokers state that real estate prices have increased 25 percent in the last 2 years. 2. San Fernando, Calif. — The original cost of the land was at the rate of $340 per acre for 40 acres. Prior to its purchase by the Govern- ment, this property was unimproved and returned to the State of California from $500 to $700 per year in taxes. It is estimated that the taxes for the San Fernando project will be approximately $2,058 for the coming year. According to Mr. H. L. Cady, manager, Cali- fornia Bank, and Mr. Frank R. Donald, president of the Chamber of Commerce, of Reseda, Calif., the average price of land in the San Fer- nando Valley, where this project is located, ranged from $500 to $1,000 an acre. In some cases land is sold as high as $2,000 an acre. While the San Fernando project has not increased land prices, the Government activity therein has tended to bring people into the valley. 3. LongvieWj Wash, — The original cost of the land was at the rate of $200 per acre for 141 acres. Prior to its purchase by the Govern- ment, this property was unimproved and returned to the State of Washington from $200 to $350 per year in taxes. It is estimated that the taxes for the Longview project will be approximately $4,547 for the coming year. A real estate company ofl&cial has reported that lots surrounding the project in Columbia Valley Gardens sell for prices ranging from $400 to $900 per acre. 4. Houston, Tex. — The original cost of the land was at the rate of approxiinately $136 per acre for 320 acres. In 1933 the State received $1.55 per acre for taxes, for a total of $496. It is estimated that the taxes for this project will be approximately $1,670 for the comxing year. It is estimated that Government activity has increased land values in the vicinity of this project by approximately $50 per acre. Suburban Resettlement. — As in the case of the rural resettlement projects, the suburban resettlement project property is sold to a nonprofit corporation. Thereafter, the only function of the Federal Government will be to see that restrictions to preserve the original character of the development are carried out. The new community will be governed like other towns of similar size in the State, and will pay its proportionate share of both State and local taxes. The locality in which a housing demonstration is placed will benefit through the construction of schools, parks, and utilities free from bonded indebtedness. By moving additional families into the locality, at no increase in funded indebtedness to the local government, there will be a reduced per capita charge for bond interest and bond retire- 16 BESETTLEMEITT ADMINISTRATIOlSr PROGRAM ment. It is also highly probable that the average per capita assessa- bles will be increased. Land values have increased in the vicinity of land purchased by the Government for several reasons. The purchase of large tracts of land for these projects has removed them permanently from the real estate market. The nature of the development is such that it will beautify the surrounding countryside. Since the projects are in suburban areas, the tenants will require adequate transportation to the cities. An increase of population in any one suburban area will be an incentive to the transportation companies to provide better service. Good transportation service usually encourages higher real estate values. The expected effect of certain of the suburban resettlement projects on tax problems in the localities where these projects are to be located is described below. Greenbelt, BerwyUj Md. — The entire area included in the Maryland suburban resettlement project will be incorporated as a village. Since there is no unit of government subordinate to the county in this area the creation of a new municipality does not displace any political organization. The new community will provide on its own account for the usual public services. Schools, however, will be operated and maintained as a part of the county school system. Certain other services will be performed by the county government for the new community. However, the additional taxable property resulting from the development of the project will provide sufficient revenue at the current county-tax rate to cover all increased costs to the county as a result of establishment of the new village. Greenbrook, Bound Brook, N. J. — It was desired that the entire area of the suburban resettlement project in New Jersey be incorporated as a borough. This area now lies in Franklin township. The tax base of Franklin would be reduced by the amount of the property included in the project. The tax base of Somerset County, however, would be increased by the value of the improvements added in the new borough. While the township and township school-district tax bases would be decreased, their expenditures would also be lessened, since the borough would assume a portion of these responsibilities. The estimated effect of these changes on the tax rates is as follows: It appears likely that the county-tax rate would be reduced by 2.1 cents per $100 of valuation; the township-tax rate increased by nine- tenfchs of 1 cent per $100; and the school-tax rate would remain constant. The net effect on the tax rate is thus estimated as a reduc- tion of 1.2 cents per $100 in Franklin township and a reduction of 2.1 cents per $100 in other parts of Somerset County. Greendale, Milwaukee, Wis, — The entire area of the suburban reset- tlement project in Wisconsin will be incorporated as a village. This will remove certain property from the tax base of the two towns in which the project area now lies. In the case of the town of Franklin, the reduction in tax base is balanced by the reduction of expenditures made possible by removing certain population and land area from the town. The town tax rate in the case of Greenfield may be reduced by 1.2 cents per $100 as a result of the change. It is not expected that school taxes will be affected by development of the project. The county tax rate will also show a shght decrease, since the tax yield of the added taxable property will exceed the increased expenditures it BESETTLEMENT ADMINISTKATION PROGRAM 17 is estimated the county will incur through the establishment of the new community. KuRAL Rehabilitation —The problem of State and local taxation receives consideration under the rural rehabilitation program. In some cases loan expenditures for the payment of taxes are regarded as necessary. The data contained in table 1 which follows show the proportion of total loans authorized for the specific purpose of paying taxes in certain sample States, and reveal that 2 cents out of every dollar loaned go for the payment of taxes, principally real estate taxes. If these figures should prevail throughout the United States when ap- plied to the total loaning program, it would mean that the rural- rehabilitation program will have contributed about $1,780,000 to State and local taxation before the end of the current fiscal year. Additional consideration is given the problem of taxation under the farm debt adjustment program. Table 2 which follows indicates that between September 1, 1935, and March 31, 1936, the voluntary farm debt adjustment committees had brought about adjustments in the indebtedness of 17,505 cases, and that for each one of these cases an average of $60.62 in taxes had been paid. This does not mean that the rural rehabilitation program provided money for the payment of these taxes, but it does mean that through its efforts debts of farmers had been so composed as to allow for the payment of $1,061,127 in State and local taxes that would probably not have been paid had such adjustments not been made. Without adjustment many of these cases would have ceased to be owners of land and would have no longer been tax-paying citizens. The two phases of the program mentioned above, while very specific in nature, do not represent the full effect of the rural rehabilitation program upon this problem. By means of loans the program enables thousands of farm owners to maintain themselves as producers and self-supporting citizens contributing to the upkeep of their local governments. Table 1, — Loans authorized for payment of taxes in selected States State United States, total- Region I: Connecticut— , - Maine ^ Maryland,- Massachusetts- _ New Hampshire New Jersey New York Pennsylvania.-. Rhode Island... Vermont Region IX: Arizona. California Nevada..- Utah Region X: Colorado Montana— Region XI: Idaho... Oregon Washington Total loans Amount of loans au- thorized for taxes Percent $3, 121, 334 $63,441 2.0 36, 888 98,800 22, 312 53, 082 113, Oil 195,227 245, 594 222, 917 11, 737 109, 448 3, 273 893 136 4,245 3, 702 2,270 10,499 6, 645 72 6,627 8.9 .9 .6 8.0 3.3 1.2 4.3 2.6 .6 6.1 45, 302 528, 774 84, 262 135,037 1,251 6, 530 1, 296 673 2.8 1.0 1.6 .5 435, 354 271, 258 1, 234 8, 259 .3 3.0 141, 745 256, 191 114, 395 2,435 4,609 892 1.7 1.8 .8 18 RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATIOlSr PROGRAM Table 2. — Taxes paid through farm debt adjustment activities, Sept. 1, 1935, to Mar. Sly 1986 Cases ad- justed Taxes paid Average amount per case 17, 505 $1, 061, 127 60. 62 633 46, 953 74. 18 25 6 51 57 20 63 19 40 236 4 112 3,232 884 637 7, 812 3,099 4, 192 1,058 3, 540 15, 674 159 6,766 129. 28 147. 33 10. 63 137. 05 154. 96 66.64 55. 68 88. 60 66. 42 39. 76 60.41 1,352 77, 505 57. 33 429 606 317 21, 376 45, 988 10, 141 49. 83 75. 89 31. 99 2, 945 143, 804 48. 83 494 445 933 499 574 30, 985 22, 470 47, 243 6, 004 37, 102 62. 72 50.49 50. 64 12. 03 64. 64 1, 896 63, 418 33. 45 590 263 390 200 5, 152 23, 449 14, 958 13, 466 8. 74 89. 16 38. 35 72. 33 2,306 86,413 37. 47 622 915 459 310 15,775 56, 030 9 030 6,578 25. 36 61. 23 19 67 17. 99 2, 184 , 71, 748 32. 85 1 191 414 579 33 164 14,346 24, 238 27. 85 34. 65 41. 86 ' 2, 733 279, 414 100. 76 439 1..064 453 817 7, 046 49, 501 131 241 91, 626 16. 05 . 46. 62 28Q 72 112. 15 1,948 219, 949 112. 91 - 654 43,947 79. 33 12fi 2fi 908 • 20,146 22. 19 417 199 0) 220 72 2, 530 1, 07U 6.07 *1 CO 7. od 3, 582 12, 464 16. 28 173. 11 240 17, 728 73.87 90 61 89 6,092 9, 764 2, 872 56. 58 160. 07 32. 27 320 34, 049 106. 40 158 41 . 121. 10, 728 453 22, 868 67. 90 11.05 188. 99 State United States, total- Region I Connecticut Delaware. Maine . Maryland Massachusetts -_ New Hampshire New Jersey. New York Pennsylvania. __ Rhode Island Vermont Region II Michigan Minnesota Wisconsin Region III Illinois Indiana Iowa Missouri Ohio...- Region IV Kentucky North Carolina.. Tennessee.. Virginia West Virginia Region V Alabama Florida. Georgia.. - South Carolina.. Region VI.... Arkansas Louisijana....... Mississippi Region VII._.,.^.._ Kansas.. Nebraska North Dakota... South Dakota... Region VIII Oklahoma... Texas. Region IX_... Arizona California... .... Nevada New Mexico Utah Region X Colorado Montana. Wyoming Region XI Idaho Oregon. Washington. 1 No activities. RESETTLEMEI^^T ADMINISTRATI03!T PROGRAM 19 THE RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROJECT PROGRAM AS IT RELATES TO LABOR The prima^^gurpose for the estabHshment of the Resettlement Administrationwas the rehabihtation and resettlement of destitute farm families. However, although all its efforts have not been directed toward furnishing work for the unemployed, the project pro- gram of the Resettlement Administration is providing both immediate and lasting benefits to labor. To meet the immediate situation the Resettlement Administration has created steady employment under modern working conditions at monthly wage rates established by the President. To care for the longer term needs, the Resettlement Ad- ministration will insure greater opportunities to a large group of workers through better housing, a fuller participation in community life, and improved educational opportunities. Near term effect on labor. — There were dunjog^^Apxil^lSSfi.^ 71^0 workers employed on projects of the Resettlement Administra- "11057 aa3 it is expected that at the peak of the program, during the summer, over 100,000 workers will be employed. Ninety percent of these workers are Resettlement Administration clients or persons taken from the relief rolls. The Resettlement Administration clients are prospective occupants of resettlement communities, rehabilitation clients, and persons whose land has been acquired for resettlement or land-improvement purposes. Workers from the relief rolls are secured through the Works Progress Administration and the United States Employment Service. The Resettlement Administration is contributing to the solution of the pressing transient-relief problem. It is now employing approximately 3,900 transients and the Greenbelt suburban resettle- ment project at Berwyn, Md., has absorbed all of the able-bodied unemployed transient laborers in Washington. The Resettlement Administration projects are prosecuted under working conditions favorable to efficient labor and satisfactory to the workers employed. On every project, work is carried on in accord- ance' with recognized safety practices. To insure safe working con-r ditions, projects are prosecuted under the guidance of skilled engineers and are subject to periodic inspection by trained safety men. All workers are covered by compensation insurance. Discrimination on any ground against workers qualified by training and experience is strictly forbidden. Complaints and grievances are given immediate and thorough investigation by persons especially trained for such work. The satisfactory work accomplished by the Resettlement Administration in the labor relations field is evidenced by the total absence of strikes and dissensions on its projects. Long-term effect on labor, — From the long-term standpoint, various aspects of the Resettlement Administration pro jecFprogram will prove of benefit to labor. The construction of communities and the devel- opment and improvement of submarginal land areas will involve the purchase of considerable quantities of building and other materials, thus providing indirect employment for laborers in the production of such materials and aiding the movement toward industrial recovery. The increased business activity stimulated locally by the establish- ment of successful farms will increase the opportunities for permanent employment in stores, warehouses, and local industries. 20 RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM The Resettlement Administration strives to broaden the economic opportunities of labor in rural areas. Many goods and services now beyond the purchasing power of these workers are being furnished through cooperative activities sponsored by the Resettlement Ad- ministration. Occupants of resettlement communities are supple- menting their incomes through canneries, workshops, and other coop- erative services. Through such cooperatives impoverished and low- income workers can, through their own efforts, improve their standard of living. The Resettlement Administration is constructing in the far West migratory farm-labor camps and part-time farms for agricultural laborers. The migratory farm-labor camps will provide a type of shelter that represents an improvement over that now available to migratory agricultural labor in this section. The part-time farms will enable certain types of agricultural labor to raise crops for their own consumption, leaving the cash income which they receive for their labor available for other necessary expenditures. The construction of suburban resettlement and subsistence home- stead communities, which are designed for those who are employed in industrial or commercial activities, will enable low-income workers to retain more of their earnings for self-advancement because of lower rents and the opportunity to raise vegetables and other foods for home consumption. It may be said that the Resettlement Administration by creating larger opportunities in rural areas will help relieve the city labor markets from some of the pressure caused by the steady cityward migration of persons who have been unable to make an adequate living on farms. Reaction of labor organizations to the Resettlement Administration program. — The reaction of labor organizations to the Resettlement Administration program has been extremely favorable. Letters from Mr. William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, and from Mr. John L. Lewis, president of the United Mine Workers of America, have been received by the Resettlement Administration and are quoted below. Hon. Joseph T. Robinson, United States Senate ^ Washington^ D, C, My Dear Senator: The American Federation of Labor is deeply interested in the Resettle men b program and in its adminis oration. For that reason, I am writing you to advise you that the American Federation of Labor has found from experience that the administration of the Resettlement program adheres very closely to the prevailing rate-of-wages principle. We have had very little, if any, objection or complaint from labor representa- tives where Resettlement projects are being carried on, against those in charge because of alleged failure to pay the prevailing rate of wages. To the con- trary, we have been most uniformly advised that those in charge of Resettlement projects pay the prevailing rate of wages. I heartily approve of the Resettlement Administration, and in behalf of the officers and members of the American Federation of Labor 1 urge the enactment of such legislation as may guarantee its continuance as a practical and con- structive agency of the Government. Very sincerely yours, Wm. Green, President^ American Federation of Labor. BESETTLEMENT ADMINISTBATION PROGRAM 21 United Mine Workers of America. Dr. R. G. Tugwell, Administrator, Resettlement Administration , Washington, D. C, Dear Dr. Tttgwell: Several times during the last year I have meant to write you expressing my appreciation of the work the Resettlement Administration is doing and of the manner in which it is being done. From groups of organized labor in many industries and in all parts of the country I have heard comments expressing approval of the work of your agency. The work of the Resettlement Administration is of value to labor because of the opportunity it has given many workers to reestablish themselves in the housing projects that are being developed both by your Rural and Suburban Resettle- ment Divisions. Your efforts at rural rehabilitation are also of definite benefit to organized labor in that by improving farm life they tend to reduce the migration of farm workers to cities in search of urban employment. I have also been impressed by the labor policies being followed by the Resettle- ment Administration. They have in all respects, subject to the limitations im- posed by the works program, met the approval of organized labor groups. I want you to know the deep appreciation which labor has for the poUcies of your agency. Sincerely yours, John L. Lewis. Favorable comment has also been received in regard to particular projects being carried on by the Resettlement Administration. For example letters endorsing and requesting the continuance of the Green- hills suburban resettlement project near Cincinnati, Ohio, have been received from the Building Trades Council of Cincinnati ; the Central Labor Council of Cincinnati; the Carpenters District Council of Hamilton County, Ohio; Kenton and Campbell Counties, Ky.; Local Union No. 141 of the Sheet Metal Workers; Local Union No. 44 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Iron Workers; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 712; the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, District Council No. 12 ; Local Union No. 59, of the United Association of Journeymen Plumbers and Steam Fitters ; Cement Finishers Union No. 524; United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Association, Local Unions Nos. 38 and 42; the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local No. 372; the International Association of Marble, Stone, and Slate Polishers, Rubbers and Saw- yers, Tile and Marble Setters Helpers and Terrazzo Workers Helpers, Local Union No. 72; the Wood, Wire, and Metal Lathers^ Union, Local No. 47; and the Cincinnati local of the International Associa- tion of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers. The following resolution was adopted by the Building Trades Coun- cil of Cincinnati in January 1936 and indicates the general attitude of these labor organizations to the Cincinnati suburban resettlement project: Whereas the United States Government proposes to construct a model town near Mount Healthy, a suburb of Cincinnati, Ohio, as a demonstration in im- proved housing and living conditions for workers; and Whereas the. aforesaid project is designed to provide (1) employment for thousands of men now unemployed, (2) decent and adequate housing at low rents for workers in the lower income brackets, (3) a solution of one of the gravest social problems confronting the Nation; and Whereas it is a known fact there is a shortage Of decent houses for workers in the renting class in Cincinnati; that more than 30 percent of the people here live in tenements; that workers in the renting class live in crowded, insanitary buildings, many of which have been or ought to be condemned; and 22 RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM Whereas such conditions above described threaten the health, welfare, and happiness of individuals and the community by the spread of disease, develop- ment of juvenile delinquents and criminals; and Whereas private building, for whatever reasons, has not taken steps to provide decent housing at low rents; and Whereas certain interests in this community are opposing this project for reasons we believe to be selfish and against the rights of working people to housing and living conditions consistent with the American standard of living: Be it Resolved, That we, the Building Trades Council of Cincinnati, endorse the said housing projects and urge the Honorable Rexford G. Tugwell, Administrator of the Resettlement Administration, to expedite its construction, and that we are not in sympathy with opposition to the project, but condemn such opposition and censure those fostering it. THE SELECTION OF OCCUPANTS FOR RESETTLEMENT PROJECTS Because of the need to assure the success of the Resettlement Administration's projects and the continued independence of the individual homesteaders or tenants, the procedure governing their selection is of great importance. Family selection is a difficult undertaking. In the resettlement of families in communities, first ^consideration must be given to those families that are being helped to relocate from the submarginal land on which they have been living and which has been purchased by the Government. Care must be exercised to prevent families financially able to maintain themselves at the average standard of living existing in their area from taking advantage of these opportunities. At the same time, the family should have sufficient income or, in the case of projects based on farming, sufficient ability to indicate a reasonable expectation of their being able to meet continuing payments. It is, therefore, necessary carefully to fit the family to the community being built. The initial selection of families for resettlement projects is made by the Resettlement Administration with the cooperation of local citizens and authorities. Aft^L the establishment of homesteader associations or housing corporations replacement of occupants will become a func- tion of those bodies. The selection of families varies somewhat according to the nature of the project. For the original subsistence homestead communities, and for the suburban resettlement communities, applications are received from eligible, interested families. As these homesteads are intended for low-income workers, $1,600 per year is normally taken as the upper limit. Each family is considered according to approved casework procedure, and final selections are made on the basis of carefully worked out criteria. In general these criteria relate, among other considerations, to reasonable prospects of economic stability, to health, to age, and to number of children in the family. In communi- ties already established, the number of applicants has varied from over 37,000 for 140 units in El Monte and San Fernando, Calif., to several himdred in some of the smaller communities, where only 25 homesteads were available. For the rural resettlement communities, occupants are selected principally from families requiring aid in retiring from submarginal land areas where land use projects are under way; from successful rural rehabilitation clients; from those who have been tenants, share- croppers, or dispossessed owners; and in part from newly married RESETTLEMENT ADMIOTSTRATION PROGRAM 23 young people of agricultural background who are without other resources. In harmony with the criteria referred to above, the selec- tion of families for resettlement communities also follows approved case- work procedure. In all resettlement projects, the object has been to provide security of home tenure on the lowest possible cost basis. To assure the main- tenance of a reasonable standard of living, the homes in rural projects are established upon an adequate farming base and those in suburban resettlement and subsistence homestead communities are provided with land for supplementary gardening and part-time farming. The Resettlement Administration, in addition, is planning its projects and its tenant selections so that both the tenants themselves and their neighbors may have access to more adequate educational, health, and recreational opportunities. Provision is made for both leasehold and sale of homesteads and farmsteads. In the smaller subsistence homestead projects, where, from the outset, commitments for sale were made, the ^ ^contract of sale^^form is employed. In the larger suburban resettlement projects, the homesteader, being a low-income worker normally renting his home, is a lessee of his home. In the rural projects, provision is made for leaseliold, or, if the client prefers, for a sale contract after a trial lease period. The individualj^iXH^dure depends upon the basic circumstances. In infiltration projects, where clients are introduced into already established agricultural communities, community organization is impractical, and arrangements are made directly between the Resettle- ment Administration and the client. In a community project, how- ever, the homesteaders are united in a nonprofit incorporated associa- tion, the specific form depending upon the laws of the State in which the commimity is established. The property as a whole is conveyed by the United States Government through the Resettlement Adminis- tration to such association. The contracts with the individual home- steaders are then made by the association and not by the Federal Government. This avoids the danger of separating occupants of resettlement communities from the existing population. The sale and the lease terms are designed to afford the homesteader maximum security, coupled with a reasonable insistence upon his responsibility for maintaining the property entrusted to him, and for meeting his payment obligations. The basic interest rate involved is 3 percent and the period of amortization is 40 years. In evaluating the property for conveyance, allowance is made for the ability of the homesteaders to pay. Reasonable appraisals, original cost figures, and data and estimates on homesteader incomes permit the calcula- tion of terms just to the homesteader, and, at the same time, terms assuring maximum protection of the Government's investment. Since projects are planned at a cost commensurate with the calculated ability of prospective occupants to pay, it is expected that there will be no serious gap between the evaluation of the property for convey- ance and its cost. Homesteader assured both security and independence of action. — Under this arrangement, the homesteader is assured a high degree of security without the sacrifice of mobility. Should he wish to with- draw he may do so at any time, but he must first offer his property to 24 KESETTLEMENT ADMINISTKATION PROGRAM his homestead association, which can then repossess it by paying him the equivalent of his accumulated equity. Any new homestead applicant must meet the approval of the association. On the other hand, should the homesteader be unable to keep up his payments, provision is made for the continued use of his home on a rental basis until his equity has been absorbed; or, if the association chooses, the cash equivalent may be paid to him so that he may vacate at once. Thus the homesteader is assured that no equity that he has accumu- lated will be sacrificed. The terms of payment under the purchase contracts are so arranged that adequate provision is made for taxes, maintenance, insurance, etc. Responsibility for tax payments and proper upkeep is placed upon the homesteaders' association, which, in turn, collects the monthly sums due from the individual families. Provision is made for credits to the homesteader for maintenance work that he may himself undertake, and all maintenance funds paid by him to the association are reserved for use on his own property. Thus out of these credits, in cases of emergency, the association's ability to carry a homesteader along for a time until he is once again able to pay up, is increased. Where the procedure involves leasing rather than selling, as in the large suburban projects, the essential elements are the same. How- ever, clients are tenants rather than purchasers. The property is conveyed to a locally organized housing authority which then makes the rental contracts with the individual families. The sums payable to such local corporation by the tenants, as in the sale procedure alluded to above, depend primarily on the calculated ability of low- income workers, eligible as tenants, to pay. To safeguard the Government's interest during the period of 40 years over which period repayment is provided, a ^ ^management con- tract'' is prepared to which the Resettlement Administration is a party. Under this contract the Resettlement Administration or its successor is authorized to supervise generally the management of resettlement properties by homesteader associations or by housing corporations. It is expected, however, that the maximum autonomy will in practice be accorded the local agencies and associations as long as they execute in good faith the responsibilities entrusted to them. Part III. Resettlement Administration Statistics 05 00 CO LAND USE Allotments from funds transferred from F. E. R. A. and new funds allocated under E. R. A. A. 1935 have been J made to 208 submarginal land purchase projects. The estimated costs used below are those approved by the President in his letters of January 8, March 10, and March 30, 1936. The amount of acreage to be purchased will vary according to the cost per acre. The figures used below for ''the number of acres to be purchased'' are based on the number of w acres that it is estimated in the field can be purchased with the money set aside for the various projects. Table 1A. — Land acquisition program — projects Project no. LA-CN-2 LA-DL-1 LA-ME-1 LP-ME-2 LP-ME-3 LA-MD-2 LA-MD-3 LP-MD-4 LP-NH-1 LA-NY-4 LC-NY-5 L 0-N Y-6 Lo-NY-7 LA-PA-4 Projects United States (208 projects). Region I (23 projects) New London County- State demonstration. - Five rural Camden Hills Acadia_ Garrett County. Eastern Shore. . Catoctin Bear Brook Land use Wildlife management - _ . Plattsburg rifle range Pine Camp enlargement. Pennsylvania farm land- Number of families on land; to be resettled with Re- settlement Adminis- tration aid 6, 653 382 11 30 7 0 0 43 13 18 4 95 79 24 Total esti- mated cost $48, 603, 820 3, 818, 022 180, 223 112, 521 245, 105 . 156, 255 123, 312 239, 110 105, 053 164, 399 70, 053 355, 714 350, 967 103, 203 110, 617 222, 463 Number of acres to be purchased 9, 298, 629 278, 528 9, 939 4, 968 13,008 7,259 8,380 33, 550 7, 746 8, 665 5, 778 28, 765 32, 319 6,780 6, 650 18, 598 Percent of acreage to be purchased Under option in field as of Apr. 15 104 92 117 166 119 73 83 93 97 114 105 133 94 0 0 100 On which- Options accepted (legal commit- ment) , as of Apr. 15. 91 82' 104 86 106 72 59 93 97 113 100 95 94 0 0 96 Site ac- quisition accounts sent to General Account- ing Office as of Apr. 15 28 6 11 31 0 5. 0 8 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 Cases closed as of Apr. 15 12 4 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 M H M o O 1 fcO Table 1A. — Land acquisition program — projects — Continued Project no. LA-PA-5 LP-PA-6 LP-PA-7 LP-PA-8 LP-PA-11 LP-PA-12 LA-RI-1 LP-IlI-2 LA-VT-1 LA-MI-2 LA-MI-3 LP-MI-4 LP-MI-6 LI-MI-8 LB-MI-14 LA-MN-3 LA-MN-4 LI-MN-6 LP-MN-7 LB-MN-8 LB-MN-11 LI-MN-15 LA-WI-2 LA-WI-3 LA-WI-4 LA-WI-5 LA-WI-6 LI-WI-8 LI-WI-9 LI-WI-11 Projects Region I — Continued. Bradford County- Raccoon Creek French Creek Laurel Hill Blue Knob Hickory Run State forest Beach Pond Farms-to-forest L. Region II (23 projects) __ Ausable Allegan Waterloo Yankee Springs L'Anse Seney Northern Minnesota, Beltrami Island- Northern Minnesota, Pine Island Twm Lakes St. Croix Rice Lake Mud Lake Flat Lake Drummond, Wis Lakewood, Wis Crandon, Wis Central Wisconsin, Necedah Central Wisconsin, Black River Bad River Lac Court Oreilles Stockbridge Number of families on land; to be resettled with Re- settlement Adminis- tration aid 28 0 0 5 15 0 10 0 0 951 300 50 16 0 0 3 236 90 0 8 13 0 0 40 47 53 55 0 0 0 Total esti- mated cost $117, 175 145, 685 193, 562 116,660 119, 203 112, 116 204, 039 43, 158 227, 429 4, 470, 464 473, 778 430, 454 311, 753 99,550 25, 616 36, 590 467, 742 204, 049 178, 447 112, 289 33, 586 575, 241 24, 460 118, 485 118, 810 105, 099 441, 324 420, 354 47, 564 32, 884 77,431 Number of acres to be purchased 15, 303 5, 343 6,741 3, 275 8,016 13, 434 12, 397 2,222 19, 402 550, 238 50, 981 34, 662 13,000 4, 070 4,222 6, 671 81, 134 23,550 23, 085 20, 631 7,790 52, 713 5,708 8,809 8, 790 9, 850 94, 256 39, 043 19, 747 16, 508 13, 950 Percent of acreage to be purchased Under option in field as of Apr. 15 122 96 90 120 67 96 104 47 0 100 97 96 120 88 95 100 92 68 121 89 100 100 228 100 89 92 99 130 95 95 104 On which — Site ac- Options quisition accepted accounts Ca55es closed as of Apr. 15 (legal commit- sent to (ieneral Tnp.Tit,^ as of -i 1- V/ Vy W LI AJ. If ing Office Apr. 15 as of Apr. 16 oO u u o\) in n u QO 01 00 190 00 ^7 0/ 0/ yj n u yu n u n u QQ 0 u vl u n u u ft 94 17 5 Q5 n ^ u. ,0 ft vo- in ft u 00 4.4. Q1 ox Q ft Qf> A 0 0 £1 100 62 55 82 29 12 53 0 0 109 52 6 84 38 7 100 0 0 100 0 0 75 0 0 96 27 1 89 36 9 92 26 3 98 11 8 124 9 0.3 95 10 8 95 17 3 94 74 0 XJl H H > i2| M H > I— I O o Q > LA-WI-12 U 1 R'70 X, 01 Z Do LO-WI-16 Camp McCoy. _-- - loo, ^OD 1 1 AAA 11, UUU Region III (17 projects). . 593 2, 201, 317 146, 933 T A TT O Dixon Springs _ — 00 xoo, Ooi C 1 CA o, loU T T> TT C u oy, io>6 1 o OAK 1 2, yuo T A TXT O 97 Zoo, oOl oo A» jA 2o, OUO T A TXT A 71 JlO, 421 in OA/4 19, o04 LP-IN-5 Versailles _ 44 129, 375 6, 078 T X> TXT Ct 1^ loo, 786 C CTO 0, 07o T A TCv O 4 zo, lob 1 >40C 1, 4oD T A T^X f\ 1 IjA— iVLU— o IK tw ol A(\ TOC 40, 7o6 O AAO o, Ouo LA-MO-4 TT * _ • J ^ -j« «- • • 12 30, 139 2, 253 LB-MO-5 Swan Lake _____ _ 27 176, 755 5, 534 LP-MO-6 Lake of the Ozarks __ __ 46 268, 433 14, 782 T T> TV /T ^T LP-MO-7 9 109, 608 5,634 c 0 TO /fTf! 7z, 47d A 001 4, y2i r> — iV± \J — y Q n ft XTT I" ^/v/\ 1^ ■1 1 1 1 A OT^ ■ 110, 376 O nOA o, ooy T A /^TT A Southeastern _ _ 31 97, 852 4, 779 o8 t C A OA"! 164, 301 "1 c oo^ lo, 2oo T A rvTT ft 80 1 oo TCA 122, 759 10 CT1 lo, 071 Region IV (28 projects) _ 714 4, 540, 555 469, 679 T A-TTV-I 1 AO lUo OAT CGA ^297, 6o4 OK AAA T A TTV 9 38 103, 248 ■I o AAA 12, 000 T A-TTV-S 286, 86o CA AAA 60,- 000 Lr-K x-4 J_X. ^ v» 1— 22 98, 948 8,000 T A XT/^ O 60 624, 640 60, 000 T A— Mn-d. 43 "1 ei OAC 151, 20d OA AAA oU, UUU T T> XT/^ O Crabtree Creek 13 100, 125 6, 000 T T>— TSjn_1 1 0 OA OOA 80, 8o9 T AAA 7, 000 T "R— Mn— 1J. 0 od2, 04o A(\ AOK 49, 925 T ■R—nr'N"-^ JUJj~ X 1\ ~0 o 8 TO AOO 7o, 982 C KOO o, Oo2 JuJX X IN O OOT UOC o27, O2o A K AAA 40, UUU T A T'M 7 OA f\A O 89, 042 1 A AAA lU, UUU Ju A— i i\ — o lEX/lloi^Tl f'/^nTT^'TT ■'/\/^Q1* lJ^/^t*AC^ OA 29 Ol >l i ff 81, 41o 1 A AAA lU, UUU T A— 'PTST-Q CA ACO o9, 9no Q KAA O, OUU Xjx X 1\ —XX TV^/^ti 'irp/^'m ^i**"CT_l-5 all "1 A 10 OA Ana o4, 4Ud A 1 0K 4, loO l>x ~ X iM — XZ 94 "1 C A AO 4 159, 4o4 1 A AAA lU, UUU Xjx X i>— Xo TT"cil1c! r^T-zaQb- TT'ollo c 0 1 AT on A 1U7, o94 T KAA /, OUU T A —V A —0 Xj A V A— Z A T^T^ rt"rv» r» "H" /w 15 If rtlyi n n* ri riTYl o8 0>4 0 AO C 248, 9o5 OA AAA oU, UUU T A-VA-^ Xv A V A O 10 HA 01 T d4, o17 K AAA 0, UUU T A _A7 A J. Xj A V J^.—'i o7 136, 514 1 K AAA 10, UUU LP-VA-5 Swift Creek A u XUTt, OOl 7 482 T "P AT" A ft Ijx — V A— 0 85 Oil ^ vl Al 246, 491 1 C AAA lo, UUU LP-VA-7 Shenandoah National Park. _ __ 65 152, 763 9, 547 LP-VA-8 Appalachian National Park 0 61, 874 9,800 LP-VA-9 Bull Run 0 82, 560 2,037 LP-VA-13 Wayside Parks . . _ 0 13, 312 384 LA-WV-4 Kanawha Head_-_ .__ . 19 127, 280 10, 000 LA-WV-7 Twelve Pole i , __,_ 0 152, 855 13, 787 ■ " ■ ' — i 1 Discontinued. Table 1A. — Land acquisition program — projects — Continued 00 Project no. LA-AL-8 LA-AL-9 LA-AL-10^ LP^AL-11 LA-FL-2 LA-FL-3 LA-FL-4 LB-FL-5 LI-FL-6 LA-FL-10 LA-GA-3 LA-GA-7 LA-GA-8 LP-GA-9 LP-GA-U LP-GA-12 LB-GA-13 LB-SC-11 LA-SC-3 LA-SC-4 LA-SC-5 LP-SC-7 LP-SC-8 LP^SC-12 LB-SC-13 Projects Region V (25 projects) . Tuskegee West Alabama Pea River Oak Mountain Wakulla agricultural Withlacoochee Pensacola St. Marks' addition Seminole Welaka Plantation Piedmont Northeast Georgia Coastal flatwoods Hard Labor Creek Alex. H. Stephens memorial. Pine Mountain — Savannah River, Ga Savannah River, S. C Clemson College Sandhills agricultural Poinsett Forest Cheraw , Kings Mountain Waysides Cape Romain addition Number of families on land; to be resettled with Re- settlement Adminis- tration aid } 580 46 34 87 20 1 56 141 0 0 15 1 6 15 5 1 23 22 36 14 23 30 0 4 Total esti- mated cost $6, 172, 365 119, 980 412, 598 281, 811 78, 396 2 911, 689 561,161 877, 681 37, 301 14, 342 14, 763 , 769,761 340, 388 157,866 60, 430 17, 230 29, 300 51, 547 361, 666 539, 632 228,166 79, 025 180,433 6, 659 40, 540 Number of acres to be purchased 1, 161, 421 10, 358 97, 482 32, 335 8, 289 289, 959 115, 773 211, 802 10, 108 2, 688 2, 504 118, 703 44, 451 32, 600 4,464 900 3, 453 5, 916 24, 968 96, 248 27, 936 4, 494 10,694 303 4,993 Percent of acreage to be purchased Under, option in field as of Apr. 15 95 99 93 97 88 89 95 91 100 95 89 109 99 119 102 100 92 100 95 96 95 116 96 89 100 On which— Options accepted (legal commit- ment) as of Apr. 15 90 90 87 82 72 89 95 86 100 95 52 98 77 97 95 100 77 100 95 93 91 116 95 0 100 Site ac- quisition accounts sent to General Account- ing Office as of Apr. 15 0 •0 0.5 0 0.2 0.1 0 0 3 97 0 51 11 0 80 49 0 84 15 0 60 0 9 0 8 104 Cases closed as of Apr. 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 97 0 31 0.8 0 73 15 0 69 2 0 15 0 0 0 > 104 i H % O o Q LA-AK-1 LA-AK-2 LA-AK-3 la-ak:-4 LA-AK-5 LA-AK-6 LB-AK-10 LA-LA-1 LA-LA-2 LB-LA-3 LB-LA^4 LB-LA-5 LA-MS-8 LA-MS-9 LA-NB-1 LB-NB-2 LB-NB-3 LB-NB-4 LA-ND-1 LA-ND-2 LA-ND-6 LI-ND-10 LI-ND-11 LP-ND-12 LB-ND-14 LB-ND-15 LB-ND-16 LB-ND-17 LB-ND-18 LA-SD-1 LA-SD-2 LA-SD-4 LA-SD-5 LI-SD-7 LI-SD-8 LI-SD-9 LI-SD-10 LI-SD-13 LP-SD-14 LP-SD-15 LB-SD-18 LB-SD-19 LB-SD-20 LB-SD-21 Region VI (14 projects) . Magazine Mountain Northwest Arkansas Eastern Arkansas (Crowley's Ridge). Eastern Arkansas (Forrest City) Eastern Arkansas (De Vails Blull) — Boston Mountain White River Northwest Louisiana Claiborne Parish _ Lacassine Bayou Sabme Lake Delta Migratory Northeast Mississippi Natchez Trace Region VII (30 projects) Pine Ridge Crescent Lake Niobrara Valentine Lake Little Missouri (McKenzie) . _ Little Missouri (Billings) Sheyenne River Standing Rock Fort Totten Roosevelt Park Arrow-Wood Des Lacs Lost wood Lakes Lower Souris Upper Souris Bad Lands— Fall River South central South Dakota. _ Little Moreau Fort Sully Pine Ridge Cutmeat Antelope Lower Brule and Crow Creek. Cheyenne River Badlands Park Custer Park La Creek Lake Andes Waubay Sand Lakes 701 3, 248, 268 590, 630 93 90 16 9 /too noA 4zy, uyu 1 A A AAA lUU, UUU 70 Yz AQ Oo A A 0. 4 0 1 1 K 116 ZLZ, OUU 1 Q ftQQ lO, Odo AA yo AA yo cr 0 0 CQ o6 1 KQ or\o lOo, /Uo 99 P\Q1 Zz, ool OA yu 07 0/ u 0 AO 77 70/1 1 1 c;7Q 11, o/y oz 77 A u u 140 t AQ 1 r\A i.'to, lU'i 1/4 1 07 ■ 14, 1/6/ 07 y/ 0/( y4 : A U 0 99fi ftA7 ' qo 099 OK yo OA : yu ■■ A 1 U u 54 328, 872 • 87, 349 98 ■ 98 73 ' 49 110 108, 208 10,350 101 99 0 ■ 0 148 138, 773 18,488 ' 96 92 0 0 8 107, 782 22, 304 100 ' 100 0 0 0 603, 516 137, 233 100 100 0 0 1 30, 234 8, 000 100 . 100 0 0 529, 713 85, 000 102 ; 90 35 11 146, 882 26, 809 85 83 0 0 629 9,762,071 1, 971, 686 100 92 32 19 oo Tin 7n9 lOfl 1Q4. lUo, iy4 1 qQ loo 07 , y/ A u A U n u A 1 (^1 4, 101 A A 44 AA 44 A A U A 91 tCQH Zl, Oou 9 ^89 Z, OOii 1 AA lUU 1 AA lUU 1 AA lUU 87 0/ Q y jcqi 091 Dox, yzx ftp; Kf> 16.0 6.0 '5.'0 18.0 22.0 LD-WI-12 LD-WI-16 LD-IL-3 LD-IL-5 LD-IN-3 LD-IN-4 LD-IN-5 LD-IN-6 LD-IO-2 LD-MO-3 LD-MO-4 LD-MO-6 LD-MO-7 LD-MO-8 LD-OH-5 LD-OH-6 LD-KY-1 ~LD-KY-2 LD-KY-3 LD-KY-4 LD-NC-3 LD-NC-4 LD-NC-8 LD-NC:-11 LD-TN-6 LD-TN-7 LD-TN-8 LD-TN-9 LD-TN-11 LD-TN-12 LD-TN-13 LD-VA-2 LD-VA-3 LD-VA^ LD-VA-5 LD-VA-6 LD-VA-7 LD-VA-B LD-VA-9 LD-VA-13 LD-WV-4 LD-WV-7 Mill Bluff, Wis Camp McCoy, Wis. Region III (15 projects) _ Dixon Springs, 111 Pere Marquette, 111 Southern Indiana Agricultural demonstration, Indiana. Southern Indiana bean blossom Versailles, Ind Winamac, Ind _ ___ Southern Iowa Meramec, Mo-._ _. University of Missouri _ __. Lake of the Ozarks, Mo _ _ Cuivre River, Mo _ __ Montserrat, Mo: ^ __ Southeastern Ohio erosion control Zaleski Forest, Ohio- Ross-Hockmg, Ohio _.. Region IV (26 projects) - Kentucky Ridge forest, Kentucky Prmceton game refuge, Kentucky Coalins forest, Kentucky Otter Creek, Ky __ Sandhills land. North Carolina Jones and Salters Lake, N. C_ Crabtree Creek, N. C Appalachian National Park, N. O Natchez-Trace forest, Tennessee Madison-Hardeman-Chester forest, Tennessee- Wilson County cedar forest, Tennessee. _ Overton County, Tenn Montgomery-Bell Park, Tenn _ Shelby Forest Park, Tenn _ _ Falls Creek Falls, Tenn __ __ Appomattox-Buckingham, Va Prince Edward, Va Cumberland demonstration, Virginia Swift Creek Park, Va Chopawamsic Park, Va Shenandoah National Park, Va Appalachian National Parkway, Va_ Bull Run Park, Va _ Wayside Parks, Virginia _ Kanawha Head, W. Va Twelve Pole, W. VaA. _ 1 Includes Civilian Conservation Corps men. 2 Initial allotment as of Apr. 17, 1936, not included in region or United States totals. 3 Discontinued. * Additional allotments have been made to the Minnesota Works Progress Administration. « Initial allotment as of Apr. 4, 1936, not included in region or United States totals. .^0 % ou. o 18 xo 1 <^ fi2 0 ^4 n 1, 971, 600 57.8 1 4, 672 1 5, 361 117 nnn Ql fi J7X» U 1 646 1 577 Oil 24 0 Zrx. u in nnn 17Q X I »7 421 2i. 9 ATE. ^ ooK nnn fiO 1 UU. X 'i48 uxu 91 n ^x. u ISO nnn 7^ 1 < O. X 274 S^O oou . fi 1 U. X 7^ nnn ^8 8 1 24fi 1 2fi8 f; fi O. D 177 nnn 28 ^ 2QQ ^71 O/ X 19 9 ^ii nnn Q8 ^ 17^5 X / «J 17Q x/y fi9 n 34,000 90.0 164 163 79.7 63,000 76.4 90 78 13.6 199, 800 51. 5 1 CO A 1 589 1 589 11. 5 ifin nnn XOKIf UUU 48 7 1 41Q 1 402 O. 5^ M H > H I— I O o 2 LD-ND-12 LD-SD-1 LD-SD-2 LD-SD-4 LD-SD-5 LD-SD-14 LD-SD-15 LD-OK-1 LD-OK-2 LD-OK-9 LD-TX-7 LD-CF-5 LD-UT-2 LD-UT-3 LD-CO-2 LD-CO-3 LD-MT-2 LD-MT-3 LD-MT-4 LD-WY-1 LD-WY-2 LD-ID-1 LD-OR-2 LD-OR-3 LD-OR-4 LD-WA-2 LD-CO-4 LD-KA-1 LD-NM-2 LD-NM-3 LD-NM-4 LD-NM-5 LD-NM-14 Roosevelt Park, North Dakota Bad Lands, Fall River, S. Dak South central South Dakota land adjustment Little Moreau game, South Dakota Fort Sully game. South Dakota Bank Lands Park, South Dakota Custer Park, S, Dak Region VIII (4 projects) Central Oklahoma grazing Cookson Hills, Okla Lake Murray Park, Okla Northeast Texas, grazing Region IX (3 projects) Mendocino, Calif Widtsoe land adjustment, Utah Central Utah dry land Region X (7 projects) - --- Fountain Creek, Colo Weld County land, Colorado Milk River, Mont Musselshell, Mont -- Lower Yellowstone, Mont Thunder Basin, Wyo Lake Guernsey Park, Wyo Region XI (5 projects) Southeastern Idaho Central Oregon, grazmg Western Oregon, settlers Silver Creek, Oregon Northeast Washington, scattered settlers Region XII (7 projects) Southern Otero, land, Colorado Southwest Kansas, land use Taos County, land. New Mexico Crater land use. New Mexico Hope irrigation, New Mexico Mills land use , New Mexico White Sands, New Mexico United States total (141 projects) oU, UUU AHA 72, 000 O/? A 26. 4 1 534 4 A e\ A 1 464 4.5 101, 400 86, 400 47.3 103 192 2.0 CO Ann Ot$, UUU A C AAA 4o, 000 A'y A 43. 0 78 A1 91 20.0 27, 000 27, 000 4.8 20 13 2.2 34, 380 34, 380 1.7 55 18 5.4 36, 700 31, 500 33.9 26 97 10.0 40, 500 37, 500 28. 1 46 186 5.0 605, 124 509, 124 52.7 1, 126 1, 474 151, 824 126, 824 26.8 114 135 5.0 183, 100 160, 800 68.9 296 464 5.0 133, 300 108, 300 42.0 398 508 30.0 loo, yuu lid, 200 6o. 8 01 T 317 OCT 367 18. 0 OA/? Ann ^ud, buy 01 O AAA 21o, 009 28. 7 loo 1 OOA 1 329 182, 940 150, 540 20. 1 111 1 271 12.3 50, 669 43, 469 54.7 33 29 30.0 27, 000 24, 000 36.5 24 29 21.0 592, 100 506, 200 62.0 1,727 1,984 A A Arid 44, 400 A A OAA 40, 800 /?A T 69. 7 1 01 131 1 OO 133 42. 0 45, 200 38, 200 87.8 144 128 65.0 OAO AAA zUo, 000 1 CO AAA 15o, 000 o9. 3 TTA 779 729 OA n 20. 0 114, 500 108, 000 50.8 209 379 90, 200 85, 200 52. 1 159 304 4.8 47, 800 42, 000 57.3 108 112 25.0 47, 000 •39,000 57.5 197 199 33.0 KTO OOO o7o, d88 OaO Ck/irx 308, 240 Ef O O 53. 3 1 At A 1, 010 ^ 1, 575 79, 800 OA A TO 39, 478 58. 7 97 1 OA 130 T A 7. 0 75, 600 20, 000 45.5 51 83 5.5 280, 000 103, 184 56.8 535 1 793 20.0 40, 000 2 30, 000 0. 0 0 188 162, 988 145, 588 50.5 327 1 381 24.6 219, 540 169, 668 62.4 237 301 42, 000 30,000 76.2 110 103 4L0 44 700 f \J\J 3Q fion 8 6 o. u 0 0 19, 500 11, 700 83.0 3 3 22.0 20, 400 14, 400 78.8 0 40 70.0 20,000 16, 584 34.6 2 2 46,800 35, 800 87.4 41 37 44.0 26, 140 21, 584 100.0 81 116 32.0 18, 000, 000 12, 839, 534 54.9 6 54, 037 7 59, 521 H > M W H W- > o O Q W > 1 Includes Civilian Conservation Corps men. 2 Initial allotment as of Apr. 17, 1936, not included in region or United States totals, « Includes 2,520 Civilian Conservation Corps men. T Includes 3,581 Civilian Conservation Corps men, 00 C71 RESETTLEMENT Under this category are given all rural resettlement projects which have been completed, which are under con- struction or for which final plans have been approved by the Administrator. There are included former subsistence homestead and F. E. R. A. projects and rural resettlement projects initiated by the Resettlement Administration. Table 2A. — Rural Resettlement program — projects under development Project no. Project Total esti- mated cost UOSt 01 houses Cost of land Cost of farm buildings and outbuildings OOSU 01 UlUl- ties Cost of land improve- ment Cost of com- niunity facilities Other costs i $56, 864, 955 5K15 298 523 tpXtJy ^aiJ\Jy KJMV $11 313.556 $4. 591. 193 $4. 074, 173 $3, 410, 048 $3, 245, 427 $3, 437, 430 $11, 495, 005 A. FINANCIALLY UNSUCCESSFUL PROJECTS COMPLETED OR MOSTLY COMPLETTCT) 2 SH-NJ-1 Region I: Jersey homesteads, 96, 400 0 345, 408 New Jersey 1 1, 570, 061 520, 000 100, 000 10, 000 99, 046 399, 207 TJpp'i/^'n TV* 140, 000 0 326, 000 STT-WV-1 Tvffart Vallftv W Va 1, 894, 300 619 400 58. 000 95. 000 239, 000 416, 900 oxx TV V ^ 1 711 200 670 000 105. 000 180. 000 224, 000 50, 000 30, 000 280, 000 172, 200 XVJ? VV V O . "Rprl TTmitjp W V« 1, 018, 948 201,900 61, 397 28, 500 61 000 41, 000 15. 000 280. 000 330. 151 Refeion V* PiprlTTinnt lirimp'stparl'? 51, 528 (T-pnro'ia 74 854 86 989 25 993 14, 424 40, 103 25, 031 104, 374 RF-GA-17 Wolf Creek, Ga., 239, Oil 18, 398 26, 400 13, 320 12, 030 13, 689 24, 120 0 131, 054 RF-SD-23 Region VII: Sioux Falls, S. 18, 835 20, 000 0 Dak 267, 124 28, 264 75, 000 27, 926 3, 466 93, 633 RF-TX-10 Region VIII: Woodlake, Tex_ 630, 542 200, 070 43, 468 20, 000 38, 000 25,000 10, 000 175, 000 119,004 RF-NM-16 Region XII: Bosque farms 144, 500 32, 500 New Mexico 724, 122 103, 500 72, 720 18,000 43, 500 25, 000 284, 402 B. FINANCIALLY SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS COMPLETED OR MOSTLY COMPLETED SH-PA-3 Region I: Westmoreland home- 38, 700 31, 000 steads, Pennsylvania. 1, 364, 800 527, 500 121, 000 106, 000 153, 100 236, 600 150, 900 SH-MN-2 Region II: Austin homesteads. 4, 101 0 Minnesota. _ 207, 980 132, 609 10, 000 14, 145 21, 439 8, 000 17, 686 Region III: SH-IN-2 Decatur homesteads, Indi- ana 166, 328 121, 582 8, 087 9, 600 6, 659 1, 074 0 0 19, 326 SH-IO-1 Granger homesteads, Iowa-_ 186, 346 103,497 ' 27,960 13, 350 20,858 7, 979 0 0 12, 702 RH-NC-2 SH-TN-5 SH-AL-2 SH-AL-3 SH-AL-4 SH-AL-5 SH-AL-12 SH-AL-13 RF-AL-16 RF-AL-17 RF-GA-15 RF-GA-16 SH-MS-4 SH-MS-5 SH^MS-6 SH-MS-7 RF-NB-7 RF-NB-8 RF-NB-9 RF-NB-10 RF-NB-11 RF-NB-12 RF-NB-13 SH-TX-2 SH-TX-3 SH-TX-4 Region IV: Penderlea homesteads, North Carolina Cumberland Homesteads, Tennessee Region V: Palmer Homesteads, Ala- bama Palmerdale Homesteads, Alabama Gardendale Homesteads, Alabama Greenwood Homesteads, Alabama. Bankhead Farms, unit A, Alabama Bankhead Farms, unit B, Alabama Cumberland Mountain, Alabama Coffee County Homesteads, Alabama Irwmville Farms, Georgia.. Briar Patch, Ga Region VI: McComb Homesteads, Mississippi Magnolia Homesteads, Mississippi Tupelo Homesteads, Mis- sissippi Hattiesburg Homesteads, Mississippi Region VII: Scotts Bluff, Nebr Fairbury farmsteads, Ne- braska Loup City, Nebr. Kearney, Nebr Grand Island, Nebr Falls City, Nebr South Sioux City, Nebr Region VIII: Beauxart Gardens, Texas. Dalworthington Gardens, Texas Houston Gardens, Texas... 992, 010 230, 430 32, 340 4, 395 30, 240 140, 905 33, 021 10, 300 ' 510, 379 1, 686, 000 630, 500 150, 000 97, 000 104, 000 336, 500 9, 000 117, 000 242, 000 260, 476 123, 642 24, 292 14, 491 53, 737 18, 186 0 0 26, 128 287, 806 84, 650 23, 300 7,560 35, 000 23, 000 2,000 50, 000 62, 296 389, 550 150, 670 39, 200 13, 500 42, 000 21, 000 5, 000 50, 000 68, 180 427, 710 169, 618 20, 100 14, 940 50, 000 28, 000 6, 000 60, 000 79, 052 86, 515 34, 997 11,845 4, 813 14, 328 4, 803 0 0 15, 729 300. 000 160 000 40 702 14 000 xo, uuu 12 000 0 25, 000 30, 298 945, 407 173, 244 60, 300 88, 640 80, 625 92. 881 79, 125 36, 058 334, 534 1, 078, 470 541, 581 480, 000 132, 800 96, 394 71, 000 326, 647 91, 481 73, 000 54, 700 47, 567 31, 000 77, 110 30, 000 26, 000 78, 260 49, 055 38, 000 129, 456 86, 553 67,500 0 46, 660 28, 000 279, 497 \ 93, 871 145, 500 102, 052 53, 372 2, 027 3, 038 10, 352 9, 208 0 0 24, 055 85, 887 42, 858 5, 225 4, 425 10, 172 2, 903 0 0 20, 304 79, 882 44, 332 4, 363 5, 200 8, 651 4, 057 0 143 13, 136 83, 515 42, 206 2,311 4, 711 13, 507 1, 941 0 0 18, 840 92, 400 5, 000 24, 800 12, 650 5, 940 0 1, 383 10, 900 31, 727 45, 800 42, 000 37, 455 45, 000 44, 200 95, 675 14, 981 18, 000 11, 173 14, 369 15, 160 , 29, 147 15, 575 2, 047 9, 300 12, 600 14, 600 43, 117 1,239 3, 000 2, 321 2,890 1,000 4, 355 2,959 2, 700 340 681 1, 218 383 1, 052 3,000 3, 954 3,289 1,466 6, 252 0 4, 183 0 0 0 0 3, 293 2, 720 4,193: 4, 827 1, 937 2, 483 6, 701 6, 350 6, 174 ; 6, 344 8, 819 9,938 158, 513 76, 642 12, 300 7, 776 33, 845 ; 6, 932 : 0 4, 500 ; 16, 518 306, 186 307, 954 139, 297 134, 840 37, 135 43, 750 19, 789 17, 435 61, 423 34, 085 10,428 13, 166 0 0 5, 000- fr,000 33, 118 ; 58, 674 H !25 (72 H o O Q 1 Cost of optioning, appraisal, land acquisition, title clearance, etc.; project planning, topographical mapping, soil analysis, plot layouts, architectural planning, material esti- mates; assistance m procuring household equipment and tools; general construction overhead, inspection; contingency fund; complete management expense for 5-year period. 2 Financially unsuccessful, from the point of view of costs and the possibility of self-liquidation. The interests of homesteaders are being guarded by enlargement of the agricul- tural enterprise, the inducement of enterprises to establish themselves at the site and furnish employment, the formation Qf cooperatives for local processing of farm products and in like ways. The investment cannot, however, be liquidated m its entirety. CO Table 2A. — Rural Resettlement program-^projectB under dH^^tdpMni^Contiimed Project no. SH-TX-5 SH-TX-6 SH-AZ-2 SH-CF-3 SH-CF-4 RF-CF-25 RF-CF-26 SH-WA-1 RR-ME-4 RR-NY-12 RR-NY-14 RR-PA-17 FS-MI-10 SH-MN-10 SH-WI-13 RR-WI-15 RR-WI-23 RH-IL-2 RR-IN-10 RR-MO-17 RR-OH-17 RR-OH-21 FS-KY-10 Project B. FINANCIALLY SUCCESSFUL PEOJECTS COMPLETED OR MOSTLY COMPLETED— COntd. Region VIII— Continued. ThreeRivers Gardens, Texas Wichita Gardens, Texas Region IX: Phoenix Homesteads, unit B, Arizona San Fernando, Calif El Monte, Calif Marysville migratory labor camps, California Arvm migratory labor camps, California Region XI: Longview Home- steads, Washington C. PROJECTS PLANNED, JUST BE- ING STARTED, OR UNDER CON- STRUCTION Region I: State of Maine Finger Lakes farms, New York New York Valley farms Northampton County farms, Pennsylvania Region II: Basswood, Mich Duluth homesteads, Min- nesota Drummond, Wis Lakewood-Crandon, Wis__- Summit farms, Wisconsin. - Region III: Lake County Homesteads, Illinois Wabash farms, Indiana Osage farms, Missouri Tuscarawas farms, Ohio Scioto farms, Ohio Region IV: Sublimity, Ky otal esti- ated cost Cost of houses Cost of land Cost of farm buildings and outbuildings Cost of utili- ties Cost of land improve- ment Cost of oper- ating goods $152, 715 lyO, yo^ f $81, 295 luo, oyy $13, 170 1 7 A.'Xf< 1 / , 400 $4, 146 14, yyi $13, 957 $19, 978 1 1 TkA. 11, _WV-8 RH-GA-2 Rr-GA-17 RF-SD-23 RF-TX-10 RF-NM-16 Projects United States total (95 projects) . A. FINANCIALLY UNSUCCESSFUL PROJECTS COMPLETED OR MOSTLY COMPLETED 1 Region I: Jersey homesteads, New Jersey. Region IV: Tygart Valley, W. Va - Arthurdale, W. Va Red House, W. Va --- Region V: Piedmont homesteads, Georgia Wolf Creek, Ga - Region VII: Sioux Falls, S Dak - — Region VIII: Woodlake, Tex Region XII: Bosque Farms, N. Mex B. FINANCIALLY SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS COMPLETED OR MOSTLY COMPLETED Region I: Westmoreland homesteads, Penn- sylvania --- Region II: Austin homesteads, Minnesota- Region III: Decatur homesteads, Indiana Granger homesteads, Iowa Region IV: Penderlea homesteads. North Carolina. Cumberland homesteads, Tennessee. Region V: PaiVmer homesteads, Alabama p^lmerdale homesteads, Alabama Gardendale homesteads, Alabama Greenwood homesteads, Alabama Bankhead farms, unit A, Alabama Bankhead farms, unit B, Alabama Cumberland Mountain, Ala — _ Coffee County homesteads, Alabama.. Irwinville farms, Georgia Briar Patch, Ga Region VI: . . . McComb homesteads, Mississippi Magnolia homesteads, Mississippi Tupelo homesteads, Mississippi. Hattiesburg homesteads, Mississippi — Region VII: Scotts Bluff, Nebr Fairsbury farmstead, Nebraska Loup City, Nebr Kearney. Nebr Grand Island, Nebr. Falls City, Nebr South Sioux City, Nebr Region VIII: Beauxart Gardens, Tex Dalworthington Gardens, Tex Houston Gardens, Tex Three Rivers Gardens, Tex Wichita Gardens, Tex — SH-PA-3 SH-MN-2 SH-IN-2 SH-IO-2 RH-NC-2 SH-TN-5 SH-AL-2 SH-AL-3 SH-AL-4 SH-AL-5 SH-AL-12 SH-AL-13 RF-AL-16 RF-AL-17 RF-GA-15 RF-GA-16 SH-MS-4 SH-MS-5 SH-MS-6 SH-MS-7 RF-NB-7 RF-NB-8 RF-NB-9 RF-NB-10 RF-NB-11 RF-NB-12 RF-NB-13 SH-TX-2 SH-TX-3 SH-TX-4 SH-TX-6 SH-TX-6 1 Difficult to coordinate with the present Resettlement Administration program, from the point of view of post and the Dossibility of self-liquidation. The interests of homesteaders are being guarded by enlarge- S oftheSXrTenter^^^^^^^^ inducement of enterprises to establish themselves at the site and Smish employme^^^ formation of cooperatives for local processing fo farm products and m like ways. The investment cannot, however, be liquidated in its entirety. 2 Project completed but repairs and additions are contemplated. 3 Completed. Number of families projects will accom- modate Total al- lotments as of Mar. 31 Percent of allot- ments encum- bered as of Mar. 31 10, 705 $15, Oil, 648 28.9 .200 1, 405, 017 79.3 170 165 160 328, 472 689, 263 145, 100 63.2 77.6 43.9 50 30 13 100 74 267, 823 73, 119 24, 770 66, 000 185, 884 55.2 41.6 6.2 29.7 59.4 253 44 645, 489 49, 207 71.1 66.7 48 50 17, 833 62, 969 46.1 87.8 150 334 669, 873 648, 825 73.7 74. 6 60 42 75 83 24 76 215 261 100 80 77, 100 141, 425 226, 720 472, 312 29,486. 179, 140 299, 389 453, 536 178, 997 106, 891 92.6 48.7 34.4 40.3 31.3 48.2 0.0 19.7 36.1 20.3 20 25 35 24 74, 337 8, 000 6,000 8, 120 33.0 60.4 7.2 33.3 22 10 10 8 10 10 22 46, 786 15, 034 11, 903 9,997 12, 132 12, 098 25, 887 51.8 18.9 17.6 26.7 39.2 24.8 21.5 50 78 100 50 62 39, 139 64, 669 9,000 22, 999 9, 600 15.0 68.6 92.5 68.8 96.7 Number of men to be em- ployed at peak of construc- tion ac- tivity BESETTLEMENT ADMINISTEATION PROGEAM 41 Table 2B. ^Rural resettlement program — projects under development— Continued Project no. Projects Number of families projects will accom- modate Total al- lotments as of Mar. 31 Percent Of allot- ments encum- bered as of Mar. 31 Number of men to be em- ployed at peak of construc- tion ac- tivity B. FINANCIALLY SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS COM- rLbiTiliD Oil JyLUCsJLJji CUMirliJiii JliU ^^UJLl. Region IX: SH-AZ-2 Phoenix homesteads, unit B, Arizona. _ 25 $27, 000 9L3 2 60 SH-CF-3 San Fernand, Calif 40 21, 473 53.4 2 50 SH-CF-4 El Monte, Calif 100 40, 615 47,2 2 50 KF-OF-25 Marysville migratory labor camps, California 200 1,000 75.0 200 RF-CF-26 Arvin migratory labor camp^ California. 200 4 22, 426 0.0 200 SH-WA-1 Region XI: Longview homesteads, Wash- 60 25, 295 49.0 2 35 C. PROJECTS PLANNEiD, JUoi 13ililIN(jf BlAxtiiiiD, OR UNDER CONSiRUClIOM Region I: RR-ME-4 State of Maine 200 120, 000 L4 ' 270 EIl-NY-12 Finger Lakes farms, New York. 95 108, 500 2.7 350 RR-NY-14 New York Valley farms— 79 140,000 2.6 350 RR-PA-17 Northampton County farms, Pennsyl- 98 57,000 .4 325 Region II: FS-MI-10 Basswood, Mich____ 114 9,044 .0 374 SH-MN-10 Duluth homesteads, Minnesota 40 15, 500 8.9 250 SH-WI-13 Drummond, Wis 40 21, 727 .0 154 RR-WI-16 Lakewood-Crandon, Wis __ 125 14, 000 16.2 375 RR-WI-23 Summit farms, Wisconsin 80 60, 000 13.8 350 Region III: RH-IL-2 Lake County homesteads, Illinois 53 126, 505 79.5 375 RR-IN-10 Wabash farms, Indiana 200 10, 000 62.8 550 RR-MO-17 Osage farms, Missouri 150 10, 000 69.2 475 RR-OH-17 Tuscarawas farms, Ohio 200 10, 000 3.7 800 RR-OH-21 Scioto farms, Ohio 160 10, 000 80.7 525 Region IV: FS-KY-10 Sublimity, Ky 66 9, 143 .0 216 RR-NC-23 North Carolina tenant security 100 447, 000 6.9 175 RR-TN-27 Tennessee tenant security 60 268, 200 .3 100 RF-VA-1 Shenandoah homesteads, Virginia 23 149, 065 44.3 1,000 SH-VA-10 Newport News, Va _ : 110 374, 656 37.4 350 Region V: SH-AL-1 Trussville homesteads, Alabama 20 11, 000 1.3 1, 000 RR-AL-27 Alabama tenant security 100 297, 000 0 300 RR-GA-26 Georgia tenant security . 100 297, 000 0 270 RF-SC-9 Ashwood plantation, South Carolina. _ 129 230, 389 27.8 425 RR-SC-20 South Carolina tenant security 75 222, 750 0 200 Region VI: RF-AK-11 Wright's plantation, Arkansas 100 528, 428 47.0 450 RR-AK-12 Lakeview, Ark 91 395, 840 30.4 450 RR-AK-13 Campbell farms, Arkansas 80 94, 500 96.9 375 RR-AK-14 Lake Dick, Ark SO 110, 000 96.7 400 RR-AE:-17 Crowleys Ridge, Ark 100 99, 500 33.2 350 RR-AK-19 Arkansas tenant security 100 347, 000 1.3 240 RR-LA-14 Louisiana tenant security 100 187, 500 .3 350 RH-MS-12 Richton, Miss.. 49 108, 890 40. 1 225 RR-MS-21 Mississippi tenant security 100 297, 000 9.9 350 RF-NB-6 Region VII: Douglas County farmstead. 100 122, 773 17.1 50 Region VIII: Rr-OK-17 Eastern Oklahoma 200 10. 000 75.3 520 RR-OK-23 Oklahoma tenant security 65 258, 050 3.3 125 RF-TX-18 Wichita Valley farms, Texas 62 133, 420 1.6 400 RR-TX-19 Highland farms, Texas 120 10, 000 31. 1 350 R.R-TX-22 Texas tenant security.. 200 839, 000 3. 2 716 RR-TX-24 Harrison County, Tex 120 43, 750 81.6 400 Region IX: RR-AZ-6 Casa Grande, Ariz _. 80 6,000 40.4 250 RF-AZ-7 Arizona part-time farms 100 84, 100 1.7 260 RF-CF-15 California migratory labor camps 1, 600 10, 000 17.2 750 RR-CF-24 California part-time farms __- 400 44, 200 30.6 850 Region X: RR-CO-7 Grande Valley, Colo 50 21, 000 40.3 250 RH-MT-1 Malta homesteads, Montana 33 102, 600 8.2 260 Region XI: RR-OR-10 Yamhill farms, Oregon 200 195, 994 3.8 400 RR-WA-5 Snohomish farms, Washington 160 108. 000 4.2 250 8 Project completed but repairs and additions are contemplated. < Initial allotment as of Apr. 13, 1936, not included in totals. 67891—36 4 42 EESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM The following table includes all rural resettlement projects to which the Resettlement Administration has allotted funds, but which have not yet been i&nally approved by the Administrator. After final plans have been prepared, these projects will be considered for develop- ment and, if approved, will be undertaken by the Resettlement Administration . Table 2C. — Rural resettlement program — projects on which plans are being prepared Project no. RR-MD-7 ER-MD-8; RR-MD-9 RR-NJ-4 SH-NY-^ RR-PA-18 RR-PA-19 RF-MI-18 RR-MI-19 RR-MI-20 RR-MI-21 RR-MI-23 RR-MI-24 RR-MI-25 RR-MI-26 SR-MI-28 RR-MN-12 RF-MN-13 RF-MN-17 RR-MN-18 RR-MN-19 RR-MN-20 RR-MN-21 RR-MN-22 RR-WI-17 RR-WI-24 RR-WI-25 RR-WI-26 RR-WI-27 SH-IL-7 RF-IL-13 RR-IL-14 RR-IN-U RR-MO-12 RR-MO-16 SH-OH-8 SH-OH-12 RR-OH-23 RR-KY-13 RR-KY-14 SH~1S1C-1 RF-NC-10 RH-NC-15 RF-NC-16 RR-NC-17 RI-NC-22 RR-TN-15 RR-TN-17 RR-TN-25 RR-TN-29 RR-TN-30 RR-VA-19 RR-VA-20 RR-WV-13 RR-WV-14 Projects United States total (154 projects). Region I (7 projects) Garrett farms, Maryland Cumberland Valley, Md Worcester farms, Maryland Archers Corners, N. J.i _. Monroe homesteads. New York. Southern Pennsylvania Northern Pennsylvania. __ Region II (22 projects) Johannesburg, Mich Ogemaw-Clare, Mich Cheboygan, Mich Allegan, Mich Bay City, Mich .. Ann Arbor, Mich Grand Rapids, Mich Lapeer, Mich _ Ironwood, Mich__ Little Fork, Minn Ethan Allen, Minn.. Rainy River, Minn Willmar, Minn.. Brainerd, Minn.. ._ Minneapolis, Minn. _.. Fergus Falls, Minn. . Thief River Falls, Minn Central Wisconsin, Wis Washburn, Wis Portage, Wis Philips, Wis Shawano, Wis Region III (9 projects) . Southern Illinois homesteads Dixon Springs, 111 Gallatin, 111 Valley farms, Indiana Sac River farms, Missouri New Madrid, Mo... Dayton homesteads. Unit 1, Ohio. Mahoning homesteads, Ohio Northeastern Ohio Region IV (17 projects). Laurel-Knox, Ky Christian-Trigg, Ky Raleigh homesteads, North Carolina. Tillery, N. C. Bricks, N. C Wake farms. North Carolina. .-. Blues Bridge, North Carolina. Pembroke Indian, N. C Cub Creek, Tenn Cairo Bend, Tenn .__ Haywood, Tenn Holston Valley, Tenn __. Rutledge grant, Tennessee... Fieldale farms, Virginia Hop farms, Virginia Little Kanawha, W. Va Upshur, W.Va Number of famil- ies pro- jects will accom- modate 16,477 307 40 50 20 70 33 44 50 1, 618 2 76 36 30 60 45 60 40 25 400 100 2 15 100 20 25 20 25 2 57 380 35 35 30 25 1, 787 2 200 110 300 200 200 300 2 140 137 200 2,475 176 360 160 2 200 10 100 200 100 200 100 200 200 180 150 75 85 Total allot- ments as of Mar. 31 1 Project withdrawn. 2 Preliminary. RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTEATIOIir PEOGEAM 43 Table 2C.- — Rural resettlement program^projects on which plans are being i preparei^— Continued Project no. RH-AL-M RH-AL-15 IlH-AL-23 RR-AL-28 SH-FL-8 RR-FL-18 RR-FL-19 RR-FL-20 RR-GA-18 RR-OA-19 RR-GA-20 RR-GA-21 RR-GA-22 RR-GA-23 RR-GA-24 RR-GA-25 SH-SC-2 RH-SC-16 RR-SC-19 RR-AK-15 RR-AK-16 RR-AK-18 RR-AK-21 RR-LA-12 RR-LA-13 RR-LA-18 RR-MS-14 RR-MS-17 RR-MS-18 RR-MS-20 RR-MS-23 RR-KA-4 RR-KA-5 RR-KA-7 RR-NB-18 RR-ND-20 RR-ND-22 RR-ND-24 RR-ND-25 RR-ND-26 RR-ND-27 RR-SD-28 RR-SD-29 RR-SD-30 RR-SD-31 RR-SD-32 RF-SD-33 SH-OK-3 RR-OK-13 RR-OK-14 RR-OK-15 RF-OK-19 RR-OK-20 RR-OK-21 RR-OK-22 RR-TX-16 RR-TX-21 RR-TX-25 RR-TX-26 Projects Region V (19 projects). Tuskegee homesteads, unit 2, Alabama. Tuskegee homesteads, unit 3, Alabama- Tuskegee homesteads, unit 1, Alabama- Prairie Farms, Alabama _ Jacksonville homesteads, Florida—,-- __ Osceola, Fla Bayhead, Fla Escambia, Fla Wheeler, Ga Houston, Ga Gwinnett, Ga MacDonough, Ga , Dawson, Ga Lowndes, Ga Worth farms, Georgia Etowah, Ga Greenville homesteads. South Carolina. Orangeburg farms. South Carolina Saluda farms, South Carolina Region VI (12 projects). Central Arkansas Valley.. Western Arkansas Valley. Northwest Arkansas Mississippi Valley, Ark._. Terrebonne, La Northwestern Louisiana- Mississippi Valley, La Northeastern Mississippi- Mound Bayou, Miss Hinds farms, Mississippi- Natchez Trace, Miss Mississippi Valley, Miss. Region VH (16 projects). Northeastern Kansas South Central Kansas Bee Creek, Kans Northwest Nebraska Little Missouri, N. Dak Yellowstone Valley, N. Dak McKenzie retirement, North Dakota. Red River Valley, N. Dak Southeastern North Dakota Ransom retirement, North Dakota- Eastern South Dakota- South Central South Dakota White River, S. Dak . Southwestern South Dakota Black Hills, S. Dak Belle Fourche-Spearflsh, S. Dak Region VHI (12 projects). Tulsa County homesteads, Oklahoma- Washita Valley, Okla Laverhe, Okla Boley, Okla Bryan, Okla Ozark, Okla Tulsa, Okla . North Central Oklahoma Delta, Tex Intercoastal Prairie, Tex ___ Fannin, Tex East Texas (Nacogdoches) Number of famil- ies pro- jects will accom- modate 1, 270 25 50 25 75 134 100 85 86 30 36 70 130 86 60 45 40 87 106 1, 217 100 150 57 150 135 200 200 125 100 1, 077 150 50 150 45 68 80 35 150 40 24 100 10 10 25 40 100 1, 365 Total allot- ments as of Mar. 31 1 125 100 100 100 80 125 110 300 100 125 100 121, 000 8, 500 10, 000 10, 000 10, 000 7,500 10, 000 10, 000 10, 000 15, 000 10,000 10, 000 10, 000 2 Preliminary. 44 RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM Table 2G.-^Rural resettlement program — projects on which plans are being prepared- — Continued Project no. RR-AZ-S RR-CF-6 RR-GF-13 RR-Cr-19 RR-NV-5 RR-UT-10 RR-UT-11 RR-UT-13 RR-UT-14 SH-CO-5 RR-CO-10 RR-CO-13 RR-MT-21 RR-MT-22 RR-MT-23 RR-MT-25 RI-MT-30 RI-MT-31 RR-MT-32 RR-WY-4 RR-WY-5 RR-WY-8 RR-WY-10 RR-ID-4 RR-ID-5 RR-OR-9 RR-OR-12 RR-OR-13 RR-OR-17 RR-WA-6 RR-WA-7 RR-CO-11 RR-00-12 RR-CO-15 RR-KA-6 RR-NM-19 RR-NM-21 RR-NM-24 RR-NM-25 RR-TX-15 Projects Region IX (9 projects) Yuma Island, Ariz _ - Del Norte, Calif. — - Santa Ana gardens, California. San Marcos, Calif. Lyon farms, Nevada Green River, Utah Price River, Utah Elberta, Utah Widtsoe, Utah Region X (14 projects).. Denver homesteads, Colorado Uncompahgre, Colo Bowen-Morgan-Waverly, Colo Milk River, Mont Beaver Creek, Mont . ^- Floweree, Mont -- Fairfield Bench, Mont Rocky Boy Indian, Montana Fort Belknap Indian, Montana Kinsey Flat, Mont Wheatland, Wyo Lingle, Wyo - Riverton, Wyo - -- Sheridan, Wyo -- Region XI (8 projects) Malad Valley, Idaho Northern Idaho - — Yaquina Bay, Oreg — Salmon River, Oreg Willamette Valley, Oreg Central Oregon Locke, Wash. Colville Valley, Wash Region XII (9 projects) Walsenburg, Colo - Broadacres, Colo Excelsior, Colo Scott farms, Kansas Lea farms. New Mexico... Mills northern, New Mexico Tewa Basin, N. Mex Rio Grande cooperative, New Mexico Plainview farms, Texas United States total (154 projects).. _ Number of famil- ies pro- jects will accom- modate 780 75 80 30 160 75 40 250 60 20 1,742 150 40 150 350 50 180 250 200 10 50 125 47 50 90 372 30 100 2 40 13 54 90 25 20 1,467 40 195 50 150 60 60 700 100 112 15, 477 Total allot- ments as of Mar. 31 $46, 200 5, 300 3, 500 2, 000 5, 800 6, 500 3, 000 10, 000 6, 900 3, 200 163, 488 31, 250 6, 000 6, 638 10, 000 8, 500 25, 000 25, 000 5, 000 1,200 12, 900 10, 000 6, 000 6, 000 10, 000 42, 800 11, 000 10, 000 5, 000 1,500 2, 600 8, 200 2, 500 2, 000 84, 200 8, 000 25, 000 5, 000 10, 000 8,000 5, 300 7, 900 5,000 10, 000 1,734,951 2 Preliminary. The following four suburban resettlement demonstration projects have received allotments from the $31,000,000 allocation for a subur- ban housing program. Construction work is in progress on all of these projects with the exception of Greenbrook, N.J. These projects are so planned that additional housing units may easily be built on the present project areas if additional funds for construction become available. It is estimated that at the peak of the program 20,000 men will be employed on these projects. Table 2D. — Suburban resettlement program — projects Project no. Projects Number of families to be accommodated by the projects Cost of housing units Land cost Cost for utili- ties, community buildings, land development, and space for future expansion Total allot- ments as of Mar. 31 Percent of allotments encumbered as of Mar. 31 Number of men working on projects May 1 As now planned As planned for future SR-MD-6- . - SR-NJ-3 SR-OH-1. SR-WI-1 Greenbelt, Md_ Greenbrook, N. J _ _ Greenhills, Ohio ___ Greendale, Wis Total__. -_. 1,000 750 1,000 750 5, 000 3,000 5, 000 3, 700 $3, 965, 000 3, 328, 000 4, 400, 000 3, 090, 000 1 $380, 000 1, 400, 000 1, 500, 000 1, 300, 000 $2, 605, 000 2, 422, 000 2, 850, 000 2, 660, 000 $4, 741, 136 3, 146, 218 3, 106, 804 3, 059, 300 51.8 47. 1 64.6 46.6 2, 377 9 223 339 3, 500 16, 700 14, 783, 000 4, 580, 000 10, 537, 000 14, 053, 458 53.1 2,948 1 In addition, approximately $740,000 has been expended for land from other funds. On projects administered by the Resettlement Administration, the percent of those homes ready for occupancy which are occupied was 87.8 percent on Mar. 1, 1936, as compared with 87.0 percent on Feb. 15, 1936; 83.5 percent on Nov. 30, 1935; and 74.1 percent on Sept. 28, 1935. Table 2E. — Occupancy of completed homes on resettlement projects, Mar. 1, 1936 Project no. SH-PA-3 KF-MI-18 SH-MN-2 SH-IN-2 SH-IO-1 RH-NC-2 SH-TN-5 SH-WV-1 SH-WV-2 RF-WV-8 SH-AL-2 SH-AL-12 EF-AL-16 RF-AL-17 RH-GA-2 RF-GA-15 RF-GA-16 RF-GA-17 RF-SC-9 Name Region I Westmoreland Homesteads, Pennsylvania Region II (2 projects) Johannesburg Resettlement, Michigan Austin Acres, Minnesota Region III (2 projects) Decatur Homesteads, Indiana Granger Homesteads, Iowa Region IV (5 projects) - Penderlea Homesteads, North Carolina Cumberland Homesteads, Tennessee Tygart Valley Homesteads Arthurdale Community, West Virginia Red House Farms, West Virgmia -. Region V (9 projects) Palmer Homesteads, Alabama Bankhead Farms, unit A, Alabama Cumberland Mountain, Alabama Coffee, Alabama Piedmont Homesteads, Georgia Irwmville, Georgia Briar Patch, Georgia Wolf Creek, Georgia Ashwood Plantation, South Carolina Applications Home completion and occupancies Number of Total num- Number of Number of persons in occupancy Received AoDroved ber of homes homes com- homes occu- planned pleted pied 1,398 171 253 122 121 621 223 47 124 45 45 200 6 o 1 1 1 15 44 'it 44 44 1 CK loO QA. M'i yo 87 392 111 117 4o 48 47 155 OK yo OU 50 40 1 237 5, 132 605 972 527 465 2,942 • 732 26 150 10 10 47 1,864 169 334 78 76 1 807 1,613 175 170 167 146 683 767 104 165 122 102 663 256 131 153 150 131 1 742 3, 536 433 948 398 350 3, 714 1,649 69 60 60 50 235 668 29 24 24 23 97 189 18 215 21 21 1,086 243 103 261 103 103 1,226 602 29 50 30 29 1 145 68 68 100 26 26 1 340 30 30 80 58 30 1 150 24 24 30 5 5 1 120 63 63 -128 71 63 1 315 SH-MS-4 SH-MS-5 SH-MS-6 SH-M'S-7 RF-NB-7 RF-NB-8 RF-NB-9 RF-NB-10 RF-NB-11 RF-NB-12 RF-NB-13 RF-SD-23 SH-TX-2 SH-TX-3 SH-TX-4 SH-TX-5 SEl-TX-6 RF-TX-10 SH-AZ-2 SH-CF-3 SH-CF-4 SH-WA-1 RF-NM-16 RF-TX-14 Region VI (4 projects) McComb homesteads, Mississippi Magnolia homesteads, Mississippi Tupelo homesteads, Mississippi Hattiesburg homestead, Mississippi Region VII (8 projects) ScottsblufE farmsteads, Nebraska Fairbury farmsteads, Nebraksa Loup City farmsteads, Nebraska Kearney farmsteads, Nebraska Grand Island farmsteads, Nebraska Falls City farmsteads, Nebraska South Sioux City, Nebr Sioux Falls, S. Dak Region VIII (6 projects) Beauxart gardens, Texas. Dalworthmgton gardens, Texas Houston gardens, Texas Three Rivers gardens, Texas Wichita gardens, Texas Woodlake community, Texas Region IX (3 projects) Phoenix homesteads, unit B San Fernando homesteads, California El Monte homesteads, California Region X (no projects). Region XI: Longview homesteads, Washington Region XII (2 projects) Bosque, N. Mex Ropesville, Tex United States total (43 projects) 1, 174 357 305 129 383 298 16 38 43 53 73 40 22 13 4,668 772 1, 830 1, 136 156 683 91 2, 571 707 77 1, 787 316 528 69 459 20, 056 1 Estimated. 74 94 94 63 218 1 A 14 OA 20 Q O OA 2if 21 Jo OC 25 01 2L oy 18 25 25 15 01 21 24 CtA 24 1 A 19 ^A 09 95 202 86 O A 84 447 14 22 12 12 62 10 10 10 10 54 10 10 10 10 56 8 8 8 8 49 10 10 1 A 10 1 A 10 An 40 10 10 1 A 10 1 A 10 CO 06 20 oo 22 OA 20 1 AT 107 13 "tin IIU A. 4 4 374 ,441 440 337 1,450 48 50 50 46 194 60 78 78 41 148 99 lOU 1 AA 100 AA 99 OAQ 26 KA CA 60 OCT 25 AO yy 60 62 62 57 226 81 101 100 69 390 168 lo5 165 163 ceo 556 28 25 25 24 90 40 40 40 40 137 100 100 100 99 329 at OU OU ^'A uU 200 103 144 102 102 471 69 74 69 69 1 345 34 70 33 33 126 2,225 3, 501 2,137 1, 877 11, 266 H H I— I O O Q 48 EESETTLEMENT ADMINISTBATION PROGRAM RURAL REHABILITATION Table 3 A. — Summary of expenditures — status of the loan and grant program as of Apr. 1936 y showing allotment y commitments y and uncommitted balance of allotment — United States totals Allotment Total com- mitments Certified vouchers Balance of unpaid com- mitments Uncommitted balance of allotment Total loans ___ __ Total grants _ Total, loans and grants... $88, 637, 978 17, 670, 612 $69, 784, 630 12, 742, 739 $54, 930,054 12, 742, 739 $14, 864, 576 0 $18, 753, 348 4,927, 773 106, 208, 490 82, 527, 369 67, 672, 793 14, 854, 576 23, 681, 121 Status of the loan and grant program as of Apr. 29 showing vouchers certified — United States totals Total loans to rehabilitation clients: Vouchers certified $57, 616, 234 Number of initial vouchers 284, 547 Total grants to rehabilitation clients: Vouchers certified. $13, 033, 108 Number of initial vouchers 293, 024 Grants from appropriation 056022: Vouchers certified $12, 813, 800 Number of initial vouchers 288, 172 Grants from appropriation 056032: Vouchers certified $219, 308 Number of initial vouchers 4, 852 Total loans and grants to rehabilitation clients: Vouchers certified___ $70,649,342 Number of initial vouchers 577, 571 Table 3B. — Loan and grant commitments and certified vouchers y daily y weekly y and monthly 1936 Period daily Jan. S__- Jan. 10 _. Jan. 17.- Jan. 24.. Jan. 31.. Feb. 7... Feb. 14.. Feb. 15., Feb. 16.. Feb. 17.. Feb. 18-, Feb. 19. Feb 20- Feb. 21. Feb. 22. Feb. 23. Feb. 24. Feb. 25. Feb. 26- Feb. 27. Feb. 28. Feb. 29. Mar. 1.: Mar. 2.. Mar. 3.. Mar. 4., Mar. 5. Mar. 6- Mar. 7. Vouchers certified Loans to rehabilita- tion clients $89, 616 144, 814 105, 484 250, 144 235, 491 316, 210 547, 985 257, 456 0 299, 205 591, 836 462, 089 548, 894 410, 931 0 0 360, 400 413, 904 429, 386 431, 111 478, 078 279, 574 0 25.?, 438 408, 314 425, 925 390, 220 334, 218 262, 536 Grants to rehabilita- tion clients $47, 838 117, 946 89, 542 113, 200 92, 607 133, 336 96, 153 80, 433 0 169, 476 133, 850 145, 287 173, 805 105, 823 0 0 137, 252 87, 298 95, 689 116, 683 129, 620 60, 422 0 108, 796 131, 306 103, 450 123, 034 127, 664 86, 785 1936 Period daily— Contd. Mar. 8 Mar. 9 Mar. 10 Mar. 11 Mar. 12 Mar. 13 Mar.- 14 Mar. 15 .- Mar. 16 Mar. 17 Mar. 18 Mar. 19...— Mar. 20 Mar. 21 Mar. 22 .... Mar. 23 Mar. 24 Mar. 25.. Mar. 26 Mar. 27 Mar. 28 Mar. 29 Mar. 30 Mar. 31 Apr. 1 Apr. 2 Apr. 3 Apr. 4 ^. Apr. 5 Vouchers certified Loans to rehabilita- tion clients 0 $367, 793 487, 136 633, 645 1, 483, 690 868, 648 369, 567 0 460, 327 582, 727 782, 216 598, 276 403, 268 356, 518 0 403, 217 480, 107 462, 217 1, 376, 636 655, 286 472, 238 0 866, 603 1, 050, 567 893, 287 1, 080, 762 1, 111, 110 739, 014 0 Grants to rehabilita- tion clients 0 $120, 516 139, 001 129, 603 135, 629 88, 201 120, 064 0 181,631 67, 483 154, 654 122, 135 93, 217 137, 286 0 128, 213 146, 084 96, 468 120, 088 119, 363 83, 639 0 95, 133 142, 190 81, 407 75, 012 82, 355 46, 116 0 KESETTLEMENT ADMINISTEATIOlir PROGRAM 49 Table 3B.- -Loan and grant commitments and certified vouchers, daily, weekly, and monthly—Continned 1936 Period daily— Oontd. Apr. 6, Apr. 7 _ Apr. 8 Apr. 9 — Apr. 10 Apr. ll._ Apr. 12 _.. Apr. 13__ _ Apr. 14 Apr. 15. Api. 16 Apr. 17 Apr. 18 Apr. 19 Apr. 20- - Apr. 21 Apr. 22 - Apr. 23 „ Apr. 24 „ Apr. 25 Apr. 26. Apr. 27 Apr. 28 Apr. 29.. Apr. 30 - May 1 - Period weekly: Dec. 14-20, 1935 Dec. 21-27, 1935 Dec. 28, 1935-Jaii. 3, 1936 Vouchers certified Loans to rehabilita- tion clients $774, 748 650, 982 952, 350 1, 956, 119 1, 481, 699 521, 542 0 661, 232 679, 119 964, 085 913, 736 690, 003 601, 170 0 662, 735 914, 239 1, 106, 527 913, 923 564, 275 615, 049 0 716, 901 685, 354 668, 976 689, 969 693, 258 745, 198 595, 642 504, 286 Grants to rehabilita- tion clients $70, 427 94, 343 93, 712 64, 897 65, 588 40, 644 0 107, 435 71, 536 87, 360 51, 449 128, 276 72, 500 0 115, 227 95, 937 51, 005 93, 284 127, 280 37, 488 0 97, 247 85, 898 69, 737 58, 314 71, 389 711, 517 592, 896 344, 156 1936 Period weekly— Contd. Jan. 4-10, 1936. Jan. 11-17, 1936 .. Jan. 13-24, 1936 Jan. 25-31, 1936 Feb. 1-7, 1936 Feb. 8-14, 1936- _ Feb. 15-21, 1936- Feb. 22-28, 1936 Feb. 29-Mar. 6, 1936 - Mar. 7-13, 1936 Mar. 14-20, 1936.—.. Mar. 21-27, 1936 Mar. 28-Apr. 3, 1936 . Apr. 4-10, 1936 Apr. 11-17, 1936 Apr. 18-24, 1936 Apr. 25-May 1, 1936.. Period monthly: July August September October November-- December January February \ March April -. Vouchers certified Loans to rehabilita- tion clients $524, 367 813, 489 974, 202 1, 400, 939 1,676, 158 2,375, 070 2, 570, 411 2,112,879 2,091, 689 4, 103, 348 3,196, 380 3,733, 981 5,474,567 6, 554, 912 4. 429, 717 4, 762, 869 4,069, 407 12, 643 1,070, 696 876, 946 1, 508, 987 1, 965, 727 2,472.036 3, 941, 038 9, 014, 092 15,235, 231 22,208, 806 Grants to rehabilita- tion clients $732, 292 783, 208 608, 187 563, 720 663, 511 497, 859 808, 674 566,643 654, 572 699, 735 739,-184 746, 502 559, 736 435, 083 486, 700 555, 233 420, 673 99, 399 2, 441, 601 2, 788, 408 2, 597, 009 3, 100, 632 2, 064, 474 Table 3C. — Monthly comparison of total loan vouchers certified to rehabilitation clients o states United States, total. Eegion 1, total. Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia. Maine Maryland Massachusetts New Hampshire New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Rhode Island Vermont Region II, total. Michigan.. Minnesota. Wisconsin.. Region III, total. Illinois. _. Indiana.. Iowa Missouri. Ohio Region IV, total. Kentucky North Carolina- Tennessee Virginia West Virginia.. Region V, total. Alabama. Florida— August 1935 September 1935 October 1935 November 1935 December 1935 January 1936 February 1936 March 1936 Cumulative through Apr. 29, 1936 $1, 070, 696 $876, 946 $1, 508, 987 $1, 965, 727 $2, 472, 036 $3, 941, 038 $9, 014, 092 $15, 235, 231 $57, 616, 244 0 0 10,204 106, 202 207, 151 149, 943 297,444 486,346 2,002,074 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1, 409 5,660 0 200 0 0 2,935 1, 325 0 0 9, 999 0 2,296 29, 708 26, 383 18, 923 0 0 17, 568 8, 325 0 0 29, 185 5,763 10, 174 18, 241 21, 784 49, 234 31, 059 540 32, 846 5, 940 2, 935 0 26, 511 5, 211 11, 082 12, 970 22, 854 33, 312 15,689 0 13, 439 6,700 3,100 0 27, 057 6, 643 14,440 13, 456 47, 290 70, 437 75, 378 6, 418 26, 525 23, 166 5,095 0 49, 327 8,654 21, 323 37,096 73, 416 105, 819 114, 904 10, 697 36, 849 63, 317 17, 188 0 295, 188 47, 071 99, 287 160, 617 293, 367 471, 265 341, 268 28, 865 184, 641 0 0 2,620 104, 290 335, 109 606, 411 948, 599 2,049,864 5, 845, 876 ooo 0 0 0 0 1,810 810 2,319 47, 784 54, 187 49, 547 201, 482 84, 080 116, 025 364, 576 125, 810 256, 267 380, 265 312, 067 569,748 718, 198 761,,918 1, 549, 318 2, 453, 418 1, 843, 140 1, 511 7,172 79, 927 227, 692 452, 621 527, 700 843, 035 1,658,876 6, 005, 196 0 1, 511 0 0 0 0 3,243 2, 214 63 1, 652 8,483 22, 122 1—4 Hi 785 37, 541 94, 590 58, 299 5, 915 17, 918 50, 970 185, 834 86, 539 47, 493 55, 080 77, 675 61, 389 112, 925 110, 620 159, 025 83, 741 184, 687 167, 067 152, 588 203, 177 135, 516 335,746 310, 131 244, 194 487, 947 280,858 1, 167,844 1. 036, 355 921, 083 1, 622, 078 1, 257, 836 0 0 6,048 64, 435 120,172 371, 709 731,633 1, 460, 608 4, 908, 817 ooooo 0 0 0 0 0 u 175 0 3, 998 1, 875 o, 4oy 573 0 31, 433 28, 990 o lot 9, 015 3, 608 59, 977 44, 451 A), 0(L 55, 150 81, 017 183, 457 31, 514 1 oo 1 1 n 107, 764 231, 746 222, 355 47, 658 309, 049 262, 728 366, 781 257, 913 788 Q99 iOO, ^£i£i 1, 155, 265 905, 542 1, 292, 899 766, 189 132,509 65, 762 276, 530 282, 429 79, 010 213, 976 846,595 1, 362, 424 5, 900, 589 0 0 10,397 1,887 75, 741 86, 565 39, 725 30, 128 9, 570 21, 753 7, 820 87, 125 165, 394 260, 773 138, 326 3;22, 414 1, 572, 374 996, 943 H M > H I— ( O O Q Georgia South Carolina. Region VI, total Arkansas- Louisiana. _ Mississippi. Region VII, total' Kansas Nebraska North Dakota. South Dakota- Region VIII, total. Oklahoma. Texas Region IX, total. Arizona. _. California. Nevada. _. Utah Region X, total. Colorado— Montana.. Wyoming. Region XI, total. Idaho Oregon Washington. Region XII, total. Colorado 3 Kansas 3 New Mexico.. Oklahoma 3... Texas 3 132, 509 0 53,478 0 107, 664 6, 560 186, 901 25,675 2,150 45, 537 93, 505 25, 526 259, 150 161, 278 533, 564 2, 062, 030 1, 269, 242 272, 948 325, 141 59, 792 57, 834 496, 001 529, 983 305, 979 1,218, 910 5,063, 102 93, 856 87, 952 91,140 180, 204 42, 646 102, 291 16, 101 43, 691 27, 408 12, 935 17, 491 115, 998 290, 727 89, 276 17,414 93, 398 419, 171 69, 564 196, 089 40, 326 259, 126 132, 052 827, 732 1, 376, 809 1, 383, 518 2, 302, 775 270, 561 236, 755 563, 477 555, 170 336, 544 828, 327 1, 304, 705 2, 424, 247 8,273, 137 270, 561 0 0 0 126, 456 3, 461 0 106, 838 156, 344 116, 230 0 290, 903 265, 474 211, 711 2,000 75, 985 116, 726 177, 263 5, 045 37, 510 307, 738 320. 275 17, 800 182,514 436, 573 589, 973 60, 185 217, 974 2 407, 281 964, 903 306, 964 745, 099 2, 154, 537 3, 075, 779 1, 026, 041 2, 016, 780 0 0 139, 828 63, 033 4, 642 180, 538 2, 667, 801 2, 110, 462 8, 340, 999 0 0 0 0 0 139, 828 15, 110 47, 923 4,642 0 40, 826 139, 712 659, 423 2, 008, 378 2 964, 356 1, 146, 106 2, 577, 291 5, 763, 708 0 29, 329 144,924 161, 538 206, 558 229, 288 318, 421 685, 141 2, 690, 616 0 0 0 0 *2,604 26, 725 0 0 11, 582 97, 851 0 35, 491 5,834 102, 004 33, 921 19, 779 15, 793 104, 713 21, 833 64, 219 16, 113 137, 264 22, 276 53, 635 26, 786 168, 919 30, 517 92, 199 65,237 292, 508 36, 201 291, 195 202, 614 1, 375, 857 181,915 930, 230 393, 167 212, 787 188, 327 255, 631 98, 477 62, 060 184, 389 603, 853 2,691,442 393, 167 U 0 209, 143 Q 3, 644 150, 001 f\ QKd. 0, aOt 32, 372 164, 354 OO, 1 to 52, 528 16, 934 27,031 1 -3, 273 47 94Q 18, 084 77, 697 f U, \JO£i 31, 660 2 378, 271 116 103 109, 479 1,413,847 RKC 014. 619, 381 0 0 37, 310 60,477 94, 536 124, 471 151, 615 380, 497 1, 853, 588 0 0 0 0 0 0 1, 888 24, 517 10, 905 . 7, 848 38, 428 14, 201 19, 807 45, 822 28, 907 45, 770 48, 607 30,094 37, 704 68, 272 45, 639 222, 707 87, 809 69, 981 723, 855 422, 242 707,491 0 0 0 26, 996 41, 215 116, 632 413, 876 794, 003 4, 040, 808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26, 996 0 0 0 0 41, 215 0 0 0 0 116, 632 0 0 2,300 34, 952 269, 960 20, 420 86,244 2 47, 685 2 130, 609 359, 278 2 59, 157 197, 274 179, 670 886, 285 1, 266, 056 196, 229 774, 568 Xfl M XSl H W H O o Q 1 Cancelation of loan vouchers during month in excess of certification of loan vouchers during month. 2 $439,294.26 transferred from Kansas, region VII, to Kansas, region XII; $13,203.36 transferred from Oklahoma, region VIII, to Oklahoma, region XII; $575,293.52 transferred from Colorado, region X, to Colorado, region XII. ^ 3 Reports received do not as yet allow the tabulation of vouchers certified prior to organization of region XII to be broken down into vouchers certified in those counties of these four States which are now in region XII and vouchers certified in those counties of these four States which remain in the old regions. 52 KESETTLEHENT APMINISTRATIO^r. FRQGRAM An unpaid commitment in the table below represents that part of a loan to a client which the Resettlement Administration has agreed to pay in the future: Table 3D. — AllotmentSy certifications, and commitments for loans to rehabilitation clients as of Apr. 24 States United States total Region I, total __ Connecticut ___ Delaware. _.. District of Columbia Maine— _ Maryland.- ._ Massachusetts New Hampshire New Jersey...- New York-..- Pennsylvania Rhode Island Vermont Region II, total Michigan Minnesota Wisconsin. Region III, total Illinois Indiana Iowa Missouri Ohio Region IV, total Kentucky North Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia Region V, total ^_ Alabama Florida Georgia South Carolina Region VI, total..^ Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi Region VII, total Kansas — Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota.-- Region VIII, total.. Oklahoma Texas - Loans to rehabilitation clients as of Apr. 24 Allotments Commit- Certified XT nil oVi OTQ Unpaid com- 1X11 tXll cll to $88, 537, 978 $69, 784, 629 $54, 930, 053 $14, 864, 676 4, 242, 600 2, 026, 755 1, 872, 908 153, 847 156, 000 67, 500 0 551, 000 265, 000 372, 000 337, 000 602, 000 791,000 720, 000 95, 000 286, 000 64,047 17j 971 0 256, 720 45, 740 102, 344 172, 206 314, 023 516, 287 328, 406 28, 459 180, 552 60,317 16, 264 0 248, 478 43, 284 90, 242 151, 612 276, 410 461, 462 320, 696 27, 880 176, 263 3, 730 1,707 0 8,242 2, 456 12, 102 20, 594 37, 613 64, 826 7, 710 679 4, 289 7, 349, noO 5, 778, 986 5, 656,882 122, 104 2, 113, 000 2, 807, 000 2, 429, 000 1,531,771 2, 446, 940 1,800,275 1,491,985 2, 379, 717 1, 785, 180 39, 786 67, 223 15, 096 8, 325, 400 7, 157, 258 5, 766, 338 1, 390, 920 . 1,670,400 1, 470, 000 1, 075, 000 2, 350, 000 1, 760, 000 1, 399, 626 1, 298, 319 942, 209 2, 258, 329 1, 258, 775 1,139, 768 991, 738 874, 210 1, 595, 104 1, 165, 518 269,868 306, 681 67, 999 663, 225 93, 267 7, 680, 000 5, 607, 187 4,604,868 1,002,329 1,610,000 1, 940, 000 1, 150, 000 1, 900, 000 1, 080, 000 835, 890 1, 524, 078 999, 479 1, 480, 277 767,463 732, 273 1, 043, 835 876, 030 1,240, 052 712,668 103, 617 480, 243 123, 449 240, 226 64,795 10, 036, 130 8, 518, 114 5, 605,424 2, 912, 690 2,790,000 1, 660, 000 3, 106, 130 2, 480, 000 2, 404, 036 1, 223, 388 2,936, 777 1, 953, 913 1, 347, 620 989, 754 2, 023, 463 1,244,587 1,056,416 233, 634 913, 314 709,326 10, 430, 000 8, 067, 944 4, 714, 781 3, 353, 163 3, 885, 000 3, 075, 000 3, 470, 000 2, 789, 272 2, 293, 194 2, 985, 478 1, 268, 349 1, 285, 491 2, 160, 941 1, 520,923 1, 007, 703 824, 537 10, 070, 800 8, 487, 923 7, 979, 110 508, 813 2, 708, 415 3, 294, 385 1, 818, 000 2, 250, 000 2, 315, 233 3, 180, 622 1, 014, 779 1, 977, 289 2,082,015 3, 067, 745 893, 306 1, 936, 044 233, 218 112, 877 121, 473 41, 245 12, 338, 946 12,379,391 8, 261, 273 4, 118, 118 2, 910, 900 9, 428, 046 3, 019, 000 9, 360, 391 2, 614, 667 5, 746, 606 . — ; i 1 ' 504, 333 3, 613. 785 RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTiBATIOIT PROGRAM 53 Table SD.' — Allotments ^ certifications ^ and commitments for loans to rehabilitation clients as of Apr. ^4-~C/ontinued States Region IX, total- Arizona- California Nevada Utah... Region X, total.... Colorado..—.. Montana Wyoming Region XI, total. . Idaho. Oregon Washington.. Alaska Region XII,i total Colorado 2 Kansas 2 New Mexico.. Oklahoma 2... Texas 2-—-. Loans to rehabilitation clients as of Apr. 24 Allotments Commit- ments Certified vouchers Unpaid com* mitments 303 164 116 746 3,629 14. 253 10, 080 6, 77o 3, 303 522 34 0 3, 716 351 2, 466 1,179 2, 281 14 553 1 -3, 833 1, ooy 1, 492 1 0 144 17 164 51 194 785 296 113 181 102 0 9, 920 5, 536 4c, 251 16,778 54, 612 14, 334 10, 620 10, 258 Delaware-. _ District of Columbia. _ Maine .. . ... . _. Maryland Massachusetts ... New Hampshire _ . New Jersey . ._ . New York _. Pennsylvania Rhode Island . 1, 412, 500 3, 585 . 134, 599 229,458 271, 337 279, 245 18, 192 1,072,944 279, 600 524,600 608, 300 0 3, 585 0 11, 727 74, 045 48, 827 37, 963 106, 950 84, 545 43, 936 102, 727 124, 674 62, 963 89, 670 126, 612 3, 911 7, 528 6, 753 198,363 453, 842 420, 739 Minnesota . Region III, total ... .. 1, 633, 700 443 118, 622 242, 739 291, 574 320, 818 1 99f; SQ9 301, 030 131, 030 103, 750 601, 250 496, 640 307 83 0 53 0 30,802 3, 697 1, 504 36. 044 46, 575 40, 780 7, 480 3, 539 81, 591 109, 349 63, 490 8,622 9, 274 108, 879 101, 309 49, 289 7,182 12, 245 153, 161 98, 941 3, 116 764 773 13, 004 7,326 234, 526 33. 686 36, 582 512, 820 408, 272 Iowa _ __ - _ __ Missouri Uuio Region IV, total . 895, 120 0 92, 507 72, 082 156, 721 106, 224 19, 684 521, 397 Kentucky . .. ... 157, 400 335, 400 194, 800 77, 840 129, 680 0 0 0 0 0 8, 271 40, 142 40, 723 0 3, 371 23, 026 23, 770 2. 136 1,726 21, 424 24, 261 56, 514 33, 672 1, 777 40,497 23, 962 29, 972 22, 891 1, 442 27, 957 4, 123 8, 994 3,638 127 2,802 106,057 195,065 102, 911 5, 339 112, 025 North Carolina . . ... Tennessee ... . ._ Virginia .. _ _. .. West Virginia Region V, total _ 383, 000 6, 569 20, 687 42, 040 37,911 67, 952 13, 106 222, 098 Alabama 57, 500 151, 250 0 6, 569 0 3, 143 3, 006 27, 000 4,731 9, 992 14, 486 20, 628 1, 677 4, 120 29,445 83, 578 Florida... 105, 500 0 10, 338 5, 124 17, 713 21, 712 0, 211 72, UId 68, 750 0 7, 206 6, 910 5, 475 11, 126 2, 098 37,062 429, 000 0 25, 861 TO CAT 73, 507 64, 396 TO ' OOO 76, oo2 1 O OTO lo, 272 OTK C10 275, Oiw 138, 000 0 3,069 21, 891 27, 211 34, 525 5,980 99,362 128, 000 0 12, 332 18, 285 11, 816 14, 781 6,406 57,889 ■i />o AAA 163, 000 0 10, 460 33, 331 OC OCA 25, oo9 CtA ATC 24, 076 a OO^ 0, 886 1 1 O QAQ lio, oDo 5, 493, 525 66, 084 961, 090 1, Oil, 131 905, 619 970, 520 64, 342 4, 461, 991 988, 085 53, 841 84, 979 230, 644 138, 855 2 114, 224 8, 867 605, 652 -v X _ 1_ _1 A fit OA A 431, 200 5, 742 32, 004 AO A C^ 98, 956 /-\ 4 AO A 94, 030 A A A A A 99, 094 T A A C 7, 995 OTfl OTO o7o, 272 1, 661, 560 483 185,204 225, 457 334, 315 347, 729 21,957 1,405, 279 2,412,680 6, 018 658, 903 456, 074 338,319 409, 473 25, 623 2, 074, 788 ~t~\ XTXTX X ^ X- ^ 1 2, 573, 438 15, 945 775, 090 545, 247 180, 627 fy-t A >l OO 314, 432 ^T TA"! 67, 701 1 OCO AO,l 1, o52, 024 Oklahoma. _- _ _ __ 805, 744 15, 945 221,947 182,802 119, 523 215, 082 43, 049 739, 255 Texas 1,767,694 0 553, 143 362, 445 61, 104 99, 350 24, 652 1,112, 769 Region IX, total 1, 094, 500 0 92, 007 85, 018 199, 940 300,428 12, 782 865,625 64, 600 0 4, 156 1 Ai O 1, 918 £* OAA 6, 800 11, 160 A>< 1 941 4U, 2U4: f^. oil "frifTl 1 Q VO 1 1 uuu n u AO Qil^i 014. 14.7 A.'^rt OOA OQT 8 171 633 274 Nevada _ 15, 000 0 6J0 1, 381 1, 750 1,946 91 5,770 Utah_ 358, 000 0 24, 958 21, 805 43, 940 53. 085 3, 579 186, 377 Region X, total 935, 150 6,447 152,511 327, 184 131, 613 140, 457 10, 201 626, 532 4o7, 7o7 o, 280 87, 250 OTO CAO 272, 508 C1 AAA 51, 090 CG TOT • 6o, 787 O CO c 3, 636 OCO KfkO 2o2, &9o 917 94-0 17^; X 1 o OK on A i60. Out: OK QQO 4.fi 019 1 71 fi7Q XIX, Ol «7 Wyoming ___ 280, 153 2, 992 45, 981 29, 372 44, 525 38, 658 3, 428 192, 260 Region XI, total— __ _ 944, 389 306 40,207 116, 537 171, 414 233, 863 15, 014 737,692 laaho -- - _- _ - - 253, 613 306 9, 883 "< ^ CAT 16, 597 57, 866 rro AT/* 78, 976 o TO er 3, 736 190, 618 A 0 3,409 OO A £Sf\ 33, 460 OT OAC 37, 305 61, 775 A A OA 4,480 t O A Tl O 184, 718 A KO 1 TO 40o, 17o A 0 26, 915 A OA 66, 480 hf/y Oil O 76, 243 AO "1 1 O 93, 112 6, 799 O^O OC£? 362, 366 Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1, 40d, o4U A 0 T A A1 "I 14, Oil "1 T COO 17, 632 "i AO AAA 148, 090 C%£!0 TOI 268, 781 C%Ct TT/? 26, 776 1, 040, 665 Colorado 3 _ __ 572, 659 0 0 0 3, 612 99, 007 9, 157 426, 147 Kansas 3 _ __ _ _ _ __ _ 318, 105 0 0 0 50, 796 2 74, 042 7,762 268,145 New Mexico _ ___ _- _____ _ 209, 500 0 14,011 17, 532 18, 407 15, 164 2, 493 103, 221 Oklahoma 3_ _ . _ ___ 91, 770 0 0 0 27, 712 23, 491 2,724 80, 136 Texas 3 214, 306 0 0 0 47, 563 57,077 4, 640 164, 016 Total appropriation 17, 670, 512 99, 399 2, 441, 601 2,788,407 2, 597, 009 3, 100, 532 293, 024 13, 033, 108 (056022) _.. 15, 787, 012 99, 379 2,427,192 2, 762, 475 2, 502, 597 3, 089, 800 288, 172 12, 831, 800 (056032) 1, 883, 500 20 14, 409 25,932 94, 412 10, 732 4,852 219, 308 1 Cancelation of grant vouchers during month in excess of certification of grant vouchers during month. 2 $117,039 transferred from Kansas, region VII, to Kansas, region XII. 3 Reports received do not, as yet, allow the tabulation of vouchers certified prior to the organization of region XII to be broken down into vouchers certified in these counties in these 4 States which are now m region XII and vouchers certified in those counties in these 4 States which remain in the old regions. 56 KESETTLEMENT ADMI^nSTRATION PEOGRAM The following table includes clients who have received advances from State corporation funds as well as from funds allocated to the Resettlement Administration under the Emergency Relief Appro- priation Act of 1935. It is estimated that there were 542,000 clients under care as of the middle of April. Table SF.- — Rural rehabilitation clients under care during March Active cases All other (in- debted) re- habilitation cases Total cases iotal Standard Emer- gency 345, 672 188, 257 157, 415 180, 666 626, 237 Of Q9fi y^o 520 5,772 QQ yy 32 1, 081 60 244 396 868 1, 4y4 83 261 oo 32 945 58 127 385 ^yy 493 46 231 1ft XO 0 136 2 117 11 XOO 375 ft7 37 30 0 u 512 n u 0 0 2 0 6 0 99 1,693 DU 244 396 636 868 1, 600 CQ OO 261 23, 671 10, 476 13, 195 49, 380 73. 061 4, 969 8, 565 2,524 rt, yo^ 2,990 2,445 O, X / o 6,575 4,432 23, 211 91 7^7 ^1, tot 9, 401 33, 348 Qf49 oU, okjZ 39, 175 18, 476 20, 699 o( , voo Ofi 9QQ yO, 25oo 5,157 O, XOU 1,916 16, 249 12. 717 1, 915 9 8^1 1, 646 6,328 5,756 3, 242 270 9, 921 6, 961 7,856 1, 044 9 mn ^, uxu 33, 202 19 0*^1 X^, aOX 13, 013 4, 180 Q Q9A o, yzo 49, 461 zo, ooy XO, / iO 8 17Q O, X/0 9,476 33, 365 A. 110 8, 154 4, 034 4 ^10 3, 272 9 9fi7 4, 009 3, 687 1, 486 1 84^ X, Ot:0 4, 145 347 ^19 1,786 0 Of uux 984 871 Ol X 1, 960 4,110 1^^ 81 XO, o LO 6,018 ion Of xyu 6, 232 44, 649 42,456 2, 193 7 7Q1 1 f / «7X '^9 A.±(\ O^f ufiU 16, 434 7, 388 14, 375 6, 452 15, 804 6, 639 14, 181 5, 832 630 749 194 620 Of I Oai 1,494 247 2, 298 90 18fi iiVf XoU 8, 882 14,-622 8, 760 44, 167 36, 616 7, 661 13, 524 57, 691 14, 922 13, 576 15, 669 11, 238 11, 681 13, 797 3,684 1,995 1,872 2,919 0 10, 605 17, 841 13, 576 26, 274 62, 425 12,035 50, 390 6, 743 69, 168 10, 868 8, 375 18, 749 24, 433 3,260 5, 188 1,483 2, 104 7, 608 3, 187 17, 266 22, 329 0 17 0 6, 726 10, 868 8, 392 18, 749 31, 159 42, 851 27, 621 15, 230 21, 326 64, 177 16, 365 27, 486 8, 135 19, 486 7,230 3 8, 000 4, 699 2 16, 627 20, 064 44, 113 14, 861 3, 670 11,291 464 15, 315 2, 281 7,875 252 4, 453 682 1,290 192 1, 406 1,599 6, 586 60 3,047 0 175 164 115 2, 281 8, 050 416 4, 668 State United States, total Region I, total Connecticut- Delaware------- Maine Maryland- Massachusetts- New Hampshire New Jersey New York Pennsylvania— Rhode Island Vermont Region II, total— Michigan-----^ Minnesota Wisconsin. — Region III, total Illinois - Indiana.— -.. Iowa --. Missouri— -- Ohio Region IV, total Kentucky - ' North Carolina Tennessee. _ Virginia- - West Virginia- Region V, total. _„ Alabama Florida Georgia South Carolina Region VI, total Arkansas Louisiana i Mississippi Region VII, total -_ Kansas.-- Nebraska. _- North Dakota South Dakota Region VIII, total Oklahoma Texas Region IX, total. Arizona— v-r California Nevada Utah 1 Estimated. 2 Adjusted. RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM 57 Table 3F. — Rural rehabilitation clients under care during March — Continued State Region X, total- Colorado Montana Wyoming Region XI, total- Idaho. - Oregon Washington, . Region XII, total Colorado Kansas i New Mexico- Oklahoma i._ Texas ^ _. Active cases Total 9, 706 4, 392 2, 482 2, 832 12, 551 3, 881 3, 579 5, 091 22, 475 5, 000 5, 000 6, 975 2, 000 3, 600 Standard 2, 738 1,548 680 610 2,601 1, 012 674 915 11, 626 1, 600 2, 000 6, 026 600 1, 500 Emer- gency 6, 968 2, 844 1, 902 2, 222 9, 950 2, 869 2, 905 4, 176 10, 849 3, 500 3,000 949 1,400 2, 000 All other (in- debted) re- habilitation cases 3, 779 1,042 1, 939 798 9 0 1 8 10, 500 1, 500 0 9, 000 0 0 Total cases 13, 485 5, 434 4, 421 3, 630 12, 560 3, 8811 3, 580' 6, 099- 32, 975 6, 600 5, OOO 15, 975'' 2,000 3, 500 1 Estimated. On September 17 the Resettlement Administration received an allocation of $2,000,000 for the administrative expenses of a farm- debt-adjustment program. This program involves a personnel of over 12,000, most of whom are voluntary committee members receiv- ing a small per-diem rate for the time of a farm debt adjustment committee meeting. The following report covers the period from September 1, 1935, through March 1936: Table 3G.— ^Farm debt adjustment, Sept. 1, 1935-Mar, 31, 1936 ^ States United States, total Region I, total Connecticut Delaware Maine Maryland Massachusetts New Hampshire New Jersey New York Pennsylvania ___ Rhode Island Vermont - Region II, total Michigan Minnesota Wisconsin _ Region III, total Illinois Indiana Iowa Missouri Ohio Cases under considera- tion during March Cases ad- justed Sept. 1, 1936-Mar. 31, 1936 Cases adjusted Indebtedness prior to adjustment Debt reduc- tion Taxes paid 31, 267 17, 505 $62, 506, Oil $16, 076, 198 $1, 061, 127 1, 427 633 2, 996, 289 558, 291 46, 95a 76 10 181 103 81 45 81 115 643 8 84 25 6 61 57 20 63 19 40 236 4 112 199, 998 36, 608 314, 211 640, 829 84, 896 148, 127 100, 619 298, 754 757, 335 14, 838 400, 074 38, 781 7, 372 42, 707 198, 335 3, 636 18, 633 32, 617 44, 143 122, 026 1,090 48, 951 3, 232 884- 537 7, 812 3,099 4, 192 1, 068- 3, 540 16, 674 159 6,766 2, 031 1, 352 4, 039, 352 1, 307, 348 77, 505 267 675 1,089 429 606 317 771, 670 1, 957, 771 1, 309, 911 209, 652 578, 990 518, 706 21, 376 45, 988- 10, 141 7,938 2, 945 18, 542, 069 4, 595, 880 143, 804: 1, 265 648 4, 533 806 686 494 445 933 499 574 5, 049, 491 1,464,029 8, 176, 032 1, 706, 371 2, 146, 146 1,401,402 290, 460 2, 015, 721 511, Oil 377, 286 , 30, 985 22,470 47;24» 6,004 37,: 102 67891—36- -5 58 EESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PBOGRAM Table ZG.—Farm debt adjustment^ Sept, 1, 1935-Mar, 31, Continued states Cases under considera- tion during March Cases ad- justed Sept. 1, 1935-Mar. 31, 1936 Cases adjusted Indebtedness prior to adjustment Debt reduc- tion Taxes paid Eegion IV (total) _ Kentucky West Virginia _ Region V (total). _ Florida -.- Georgia.- - Kegion VI (total)... - Arkansas ^— Region VII (total) - Kansas North Dakota. _. Region VIII (total).... Texas Region IX (total) California New Mexico Utali Region X (total) Colorado Montana Wyoming R^ion XI (total) Idaho Oio i, ooO $4, 300, 343 $704, 729 $63, 418 i'±o 458 399 702 oil oyu 263 390 453 947, 951 QOQ KOQ 959, 287 yuo, ooo 696, 709 93, 678 ooo QQA ZZOf OOU 64, 143 91 Q 1 7R 114,360 5, 152 9^^ AAQ 14, 968 0, oyo 13, 46g { io 3, 621, 886 676, 063 86, 413 927 662 830 404 622 915 459 OJ.U coo 1QO o//, lyy 1, 782, 944 7Kn 1 OQ / ou, 1/y 166, 614 iSUo, yoi 333,997 10K 7Q1 IZO, /Ol 9,384 10, no 66, 030 y, UoU 5, 578 Q (V7A 6, U/4 9 1 QA A Kn7 4, oio, OU/ o\Jo, yUo 71 '7A C 71, /4o 900 1 MA 1,100 1,191 414 679 J, z41, 4U0 682, 980 1, 392, 122 A'7[\ Q7Q 153, 560 181, 468 OO, 104 14, 346 24, 238 3, 252 2,773 9, 114, 805 3, 493, 666 279, 414 545 1, 349 294 1, Uo4 439 1,064 453 Q1 7 ol/ 1, 4o8, 4do 2, 749, 246 1, 957, 109 2, 969, 987 418, 027 944, 867 667, 4oo 1, 463, 229 T f\A CI 7, 04d 49, 601 131, 241 91, 626 4, olo 1, 948 8, 185, 601 949, 743 219, 949 1, 521 2, 997 554 1, 394 1, 505, 320 0, ooU, 2oi 303, 388 040, ooo 43, 947 1 TC AAO 17o, 002 1, 843 908 4, 971, 610 2, 185, 133 20, 146 342 312 (?) 910 279 417 199 (?) 220 72 915, 427 2, 717, 407 (2) 1, 022, 369 316, 407 27, 897 2, 045, 633 (2) 35, 274 76,329 2, 630 1, 670 (?) 3, 582 12, 464 313 240 1, 043, 534 379, 103 17, 728 167 65 81 90 61 89 593, 031 168, 922 281, 681 209, 391 62, 186 107, 526 5, 092 9, 764 2, 872 1, 485 320 1,474, 015 421,446 34, 049 747 155 583 158 41 121 567, 978 145, 268 760, 779 113, 723 28, 651 279, 172 10, 728 453 22, 868 i Prepared from monthly Farm Debt Adjustment Reports RA-RR-75 and 78. « No activities. This information includes preliminary figures for March, which are subject to revision. The following cooperatives have received loans to establish a coop- erative service: Table 3H. — Rehabilitation cooperative projects Project no. Projects Purpose Total al- lotments OR-NH-601 CR-ND-601 CR-MS-501 CR-NM-501 CR-VA-506 Forest Projects Association, New Hampshire i-- Farmer's Union Cooperative Association, North Dakota. Sweet Potato Growers, Inc., Mississippi Sandoval Cooperative Association, New Mexico. Carrottoman Farmers Cooperative, Inc., Vir- ginia. Marketing of pulp wood Marketing of poultry and poultry products. Manufacture of sweetpotato starch and byproducts. Equipment service center... do $100, 000 82,000 10, 545 4, 318 2, 500 1 This project has also received $40,000 from State Rural Rehabilitation Corporation funds. LAND USE PROGRAM TATUS OF TITLE CLEARANCE WORK UNDER LAND ACQUISITION PHASE AS OF APRIL 15,1936 OPTIONS TO BE SUBMITTED VOOjOOO ACRES RECEIVED FROM FIELD 9^70/>00 ACRES ACCEPTED 6,420,000 ACRES ABSTRACTS ORDERED 6,727,859 ACRES Apr 7 SENT TO SPECL.ATTY DEPT. OF JUSTICE SENT TO ATTORNEY GENERAL Iprelimnaryi opinions RECt). BY GENERAL COUNCIL SITE AQUISITION ACCOUNTS FORWARDED TO G.A.O. CERTIFICATE OF I5ETTLEMEN ISSUED 2,960,000 ACRES 2,500,000 ACRES 1,610,000 ACRES FINAL OPINIONS RECEIVED 1,240,000 ACRES CHART NO. 37 Statistics 8i Records Section Finance ft Control Division, 67891— 3§ ( F^^ce p. 58 ) No. 1 PART IV LAND USE PROGRAM EMPLOYMENT OF LABOR UNDER LAND DEVELOPMENT PHASE W««k Labor NOV. 16 JEifiolflyftc u NOV 23 60 NOV 30 1,693 ii DEC 7 3,218 ItlH DEC. 14 6,363 wm DEC.2I 8,443 mm DEC.28 11,901 \ \ A^A^ A^ \ AyA A JAN 4 13,799 JAN.tl 18,433 ntiifttfnninnir JAN 18 22,417 iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiii v^i JAN ^0 26,102 MilMiiMilliiiiiiiiMiiil^i FEB 1 27,847 FES 8 33,304 iliitliifiliililtfiti^liltiilltiillil^itjf^t lililllRHnillHHIIRUnHlUHlBllii FEB 15 (1 H IB U M II H W CV IB H M H S> 81 01 i> II fl H is |« 89 IS ■* H FEB.22 37,554 MMiMMummuimiiiwiiiiiiiiiw FEB 29 39,983 MlltHtfitlMiHMiiHtttMltitHIIMtr^ MAR 7 42,076 HHitmiititiiiiiifitttittiiiMtitiiiiiiiiia MAR 14 44,901 iMiiMiiiuiMiiHiui«imi(iiimiimiii MAR 21 46.062 tNHtMMtHtHttHlinmiiHimttllHMIItM MAR 28 49^529 mmmmmmmmmmmm APR 4 51,517 HWIttlillllllillliilllllililHilllliliimHillililMi APR. II 53.688 tmHiitmiiiitfttttttH^^ APR.I8 55,781 iifnitiiitiiiiMmiitffifmmHiittiiiiniiiH^^ APR.25 57,620 mmmmmmmimmmimmm MAY 2 55^40 wmtHiHffHftfWttiiWiiiifiMiiiuiiiHiiiiiiititWiti MAY. 9 MAY 16 MAY 23 MAY30 JUNE 6 JUNE 13 JUNE20 JUNEZ7 Not.. fl RA.Employoo» ^ _ ^. pSi figure roprwnta on. thpufond m.n- J V/>^^?c/ac/o COaMmp/oyco^ . 4 C.C.C, Employees 1. 67891—36 (Face p. 58) No. 2 RESETTLEMENT PROGRAM LABOR EMPLOYMENT ON RESETTLEMENT PROJECTS JUN£*22i 1,674 JUNE-29 IJB69 II JULY- 6 1^13 II JULY- 13 I^I5 JULY-20 2P3I ft — junr-27 2,105 III AUG.- 3 2^38 III AUGr 10 2,714 111 AUG.- 17 2343 IH AUG.- 24 3^210 mi AUG.-3I 3^223 in SEPT- 7 2^68 IH SEPT- 14 3.756 m SEPT-21 4,055 m SEPT-28 4,096 m OCT.- 5 4,421 m OCT- 12 4,228 lilt OCT- 19 5,052 imi OCT- 26 4,529 mil NOV.- 2 3,500 im NOV.- 9 4,838 nm NOV.- 16 4,762 IIIK NOV.- 23 4,662 IIIM NOV.- 30 3,344 III! DEC- 7 4,440 Illif DEC- 14 4,424 iim DEC- 21 4,885 imi DEC- 28 4,951 iim JAN.- 4 i;909 II JAN.- 1! 3,013 lit JAN.- 18 5,674 IIHH JAN.- 25 6.077 urn rcB.- J iimii FEB.- 8 6^10 iimii FEB.- 15 iiittn FEB.- 22 7,095 immi FEB.- 29 7,225 imnti MAR.- 7 7.662 m iif MAR.- 14 7.760 llfHIIf MAa-21 8,663 iimnii MAR.- 28 9lp70 immir APR.- 4 9,986 > iimiiiii APR.- It 10.637 intmiiit APR.- 18 1 1,760 miiiiiiiii APR.^25 11,998 flpiltliH MAY- 2 1 1,590 mmm MAY- 9 MAY- 16 MAY- 23 MAY- 30 JUNE- 6 JUNE- 13 JUNE-20 JUNE-27 GOAL 60,000 Ont fi^urn tquolt o thoutohd mtn. •CHART NO. 32- Statittic* ft Racordt S«ct. Finonct ft Control Div'rv 67891—36 (Face p. 58) No. 3 9 SUBURBAN RESETTLEMENT PROGRAM STATUS OF TITLE CLEARANCE WORK ON SUBURBAN RESETTLEMENT PROJECTS AS OF MARCH 31,1936 PURCHASE AUTHORIZED 25,296 ACRES OPTIONS TAKEN 46,048 ACRES ACCEPTED 23,171 ACRES A B STRACTS ORDERED SENT TO SPEdL.ATTY DEP*T. OF JUSTICE 17,318 ACRES SENT TO ATTORNEY GENERAL PRELIMINARY OPINIONS REC'D. BY GENERAL COUNCIL SITE AQUISITION ACCOUNTS FORWARDED TO G.AJO. CERTIPICATE OF ISETTLEMENTI ISSUED 15,541 ACRES FINAL OPINIONS RECEIVED 12,453 ACRES 8,532 ACRES CHART NO. 43 Stotistlcs Section Finonce S Control Div. 67891—36 (Face p. 58) No. 4 RURAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM LOANS a GRANTS TO REHABILITATION CLIENTS 1935-1936 JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE ^100,000,000 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 — — I 1 1 1 1 — 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T" 90,000,000 80,000,000 70,000.000 60,000,000 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 20.000,000 10,000,000 CHART NO. 26 Statistics 8i Records Section Finance 8i Control Division 4-21-36 67891—36 (Pace p. 58) N(l.5 RURAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM FARM DEBT ADJUSTMENT ACTIVITIES ■ • . • .V INDEBTEDNESS. BEFORE ' : AOJUSTMENt $ 62,500.000" • DEBTEDNE AFTgR ADJUStlvlENT $46/J00;000' CASES 30,000 CASE S ADJUS ;ted to DATE J -17,500 20,000, 10.000 ][I50,000,000 100,000,000 50,000,000 SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APRIL MAY JUNE I 9 3 5 INDE ADJUSTED I 9 BTEDNESS OF C/^SES TO D/^TE 3 6 -*62,500,0C|0 •CHART 36- Stotistics a Records Section Finance & Control Division 67801—36 (Face p. 58) No. 6 Ton © IDAHO ® KEVAOA CALIFORNIA ^ © \ \ \ \ RESETTLEMENT ADMIN\STRAT\0N Pf^^"^^ 0 o 0 00 ©O00 0 ® 0 ® WYOMING 0 "0 ^0 © 0 ® ® 0^ 1 O NORTH DAKOTA Vy I—. ^ ^ ('^ ^ L ^ . \© 0 © © © i O ^ ©i 0 _0 ©0 0 SOUTH DAKOTA MWNESOTA ^ 0 © © o] . ©0 0 ® 0 NEBRASKA ©0 \ © ^0 0,^ 0 0,..-JP^ UTAH 0 COLORAbol KANSAS 0 ®-V o \0 0 i;^ ^ ^ ©|> © ARIZONA © ^ NEW MEXICO © 0 © 01 © / © .© © 1 ^ ^ ©0 \^ © ^ OKUHOMA e ^ I 0e ^,,,,3AS / 0 TEXAS © © © LEGEND SUBURBAN RESETTLEMENT TYPE RIJRAL RESETTue«ENT TWE Q INDIAN LAND USE TYPE I «Te... ..o. (7^ INDIAN 0 PARKS CRECREAT.ONAL) 0 OTHER TYPE OTHER PROJECTS 0 FOREST 3,,,cE HOMESTEADS) 0 INDIAN CPORMER SUBSlSTEm^^ © ORAPH RA-A09CReV.S.0N5) PREPARED By'pROCEOORE 0.V.S10H {0" 6T891-~-36 (Face p. 58) I^o. T RKETTLEMHiF AiMIN^R/VTION PROJECTS REGION I GRAPH RA-AD 10 (REVISION 2) 5^9-36 PREPARED BY PROCEDURE tVVISION LEGEND ACTIVE PROJECTS PROJECTS BEING DEVELOPED ^ ^ J PROJECTS COMPLETED SUBURBAN RESETTLEMENT TYPE SR RESETTLEMENT SH FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RURAL RESETTLEMENT TYPE RR RESETTLEMENT RH FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RF FORMER F.E R.A. RL COOPERATIVE & COMMUNITY SERVICE Rl INDIAN LAND ACQUISITION TYPE LA AGRICULTURAL LB MIGRATORY WATERFOWL (BIOL. SUR.) LI INDIAN LP PARKS (RECREATIONAL) LO OTHER TYPE OTHER PROJECTS FS FOREST SERVICE m INDIAN (FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS} ^ RESETTLEMENT PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS ON WHICH LAND DEVELOPMENT [LD] WORK IS IN PROGRESS 07801—80 (Face p. 58) No. 8 RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM 59 Part IV The following survey shows graphically the location of projects of the Resettlement Administration: REGION 1 Project no. *LD and LA-GN 2 *LD and LA-DL *LD and LA-ME 1— *LD and LP-ME 2.... *LD and LP-ME 3_.- RR-ME 4 *LD and LA-MD 2..._ *LD and LA-MD 3.___ *LD and LP-MD 4— _ SR-MD 6 RR-MD 7 RR-MD 8 RR-MD 9._ *LD and LP-NH l... SH-NJ 1. SR-NJ 3_ RR-NJ 4. SH-NY3.— *LD and LA-NY 4..._ *LD and LA-NY 5..._ RR-NY 12 RR-NY 14 SH-PA 3- *LD and LA-PA 4. *LD and LA-PA 5. *LD and LP-PA 6 *LD and LP-PA 7-..__ *LD and LP-PA 8 *LD and LP-PA 11„__ *LD and LP-PA 12_-.. RR-PA 17 RR-PA 18 RR-PA 19. *LD and LA-RI 1. *LD and LP-RI 2. *LD and LA-VT 1.. City CONNECTICUT Norwich __ DELAWARE Harrington — MAINE Bangor _.- Camden Bar Harbor. MARYLAND Grantsville Salisbury.- Thurmont. Berwyn Grantsville- Pocomoke. NEW HAMPSHIRE Concord NEW JERSEY Hightstown Bound Brook. _ NEW YORK Rochester. Ithaca do- — do--_. do--. PENNSYLVANIA Greensburg. Huntingdon. Towanda. Beaver Birdsboro Somerset Bedford- White Haven___ Upper Nazareth. RHODE ISLAND East Greenwich. Providence VERMONT Rutland- __ County New London, Windham, Middlesex, Hartford, Tolland. Sussex, Kent. Penobscot, Washington, Cumberland, Waldo, Franklin. Knox and Waldo Hancock Whole State Garrett Wicomico and 2 _ Frederick and 1_ Prince Georges Garrett Frederick, Washington- Worcester Merrimack, Rockingham. Monmouth- _ ___ Somerset Ocean Monroe. Tioga and 3... Livingston and 9. Tompkins and 6__ Tompkins and 9 Westmoreland Bedford and 3 Bradford and Tioga..-___ Beaver. _ Berks and Chester Somerset Blair and Bedford Carbon Northampton Huntingdon, Juniata, Bedford, Blair, Centre. Bradford, Penn, and Tioga, N. Y. Providence, Kent and Washington. Kent and Washington Addison, Windsor, Orange, Washington, and Rutland. Project New London County stranded rural rehabilitation. State demonstration forest. 5 rural problem areas. Camden Hills Park. Acadia Park. State of Maine farms. Garrett County land, agricul- tural. Eastern Shore Agricultural. Catoctin Park. Green Belt. Garrett farms. Cumberland Valley farms. Worcester farms. Bear Brook recreational dem« onstration. Jersey homesteaders. Greenbrook. Archers Corners. Monroe County homesteads. Land Use Reorganization. Wildlife management area. Finger Lakes farms. New York Valley farms. Westmoreland homesteads. Pennsylvania farm-land use readjustment. Bradford County land use re- adjustment. Racoon Creek Park. French Creek Park. Laurel Hill Park. Blue Knob Park. Hickory Run Park. Northampton farms. Southern Pennsylvania farms. Northern Pennsylvania farms. State forests land acquisition and rural rehabilitation. Beach Pond recreational. Farms-to-forest. 60 EESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM REGION 2 Project no. LA-MI 2. *LD and LA-MI 3. *LD and LP-MI 4. *LD and LP-MI 6. LI-MI 8 -— PS-MI 10 LB-MI 14 RF-MI 18 RR-MI 19 —- RR-MI 20 RR-MI 21- RR-MI 23. RR-MI 24. RR-MI 25. RR-MI 26. SR-MI 28- SH-MN 2 ♦LDand LA-MN3— _ *LDand LA-MN4. LI-MN 6 *LDand LP-MN 7— LB-MN 8 SH-MN 10- LB-MN 11-. RR-MN 12. RF-MN 13. LI-MN 15.- City MICHIGAN Grayling. Allegan... Waterloo- Hastings -_ Iron River. Gladwin. Gaylord- Allegan. Ironwood. MINNESOTA Austin Baudette .do- Pine City. Duluth... RF-MN 17. RR-MN 18- RR-MN 19. RR-MN 20. RR-MN 21. RR-MN 22- SR-WI 1 LA-WI 2 LA-WI 3 — LA-WI 4 *LD and LA-WI 5. *LD and LA-WI 6... LI-WI8.— — - LI-WI 9 LI-WI 11 *LD and LA-WI 12.. FS-WI 13 RR-WI 15 *LDand LO-WI 16—. RR-WI 17 RR-WI 23. RR-WI 24. RR-WI 25. RR-WI 26. RR-WI 27. Littlefork. Hibbing-, Litchfield. WISCONSIN Milwaukee. Black River Falls. do .do. Black River Falls. Drummond Rhinelander Sparta Black River Falls. Summit. County 19 counties - Allegan Washtenaw and Jackson Barry Baraga Iron Schoolcraft Otsego . Clare and 2 Cheyboygan and Presque Isle. Allegan, and 5 .... Oscoda, and 11 Washtenaw, Mason, Mon- roe, Hillsdale and 4. Oceana, and 10 Huron, and 7 _. Gogebic _ Mower Roseau, and 2. Koochiching _ . Mahnomen. Pine Aitkin St. Louis. Marshall- Koochiching- Itasca Becker Roseau and Lake of the Woods. Traverse, and 10 Cass, and 7 Stearns, and 13 Clay, and 8 Kittson, and 10 Milwaukee _ Sawyer, Bayfield Oconto, Forest, Langlade - Vilas, Florence, Forest Juneau, Wood, Monroe, Jackson. Clark, Jackson Ashland, Iron Sawyer. Shawano.- Monroe Sawyer, Bayfield Vilas, Oneida, Lincoln, Price, Forest, Oconto, Florence, Langlade. Monroe.-- Clark, Wood, Jackson, Monroe, Trempealeau, Sauk. Langlade Douglas, Ashland, Iron, Burnett, Bayfield Marathon, Wood, Portage, Waupaca, Juneau, Ad- ams Price, Polk, Barron, Rusk, St. Croix, Dunn, Chip- pewa. Shawano, Oconto, Door, Outagamie, Brown, Kewaunee, Winneba^-o, and 4. Project Au Sable State forest, agricul- tural. Allegan Land, agricultural. Waterloo Park. Yankee Springs park. L'Anse Indian. Basswood Forest, community. Seney migratory waterfowl. Johannesburg farms. Ogemaw-Clare, farms. Cheboygan Farms. Allegan farms. Bay City farms. Ann Arbor farms. Grand Rapids farms. Lapeer Farms. Ironwood homesteads. Austin homesteads. Northern Minnesota, Beltrami Island settlers relief. Northern Minnesota, Pine Island settlers relief. Twin Lakes Indian. St. Croix parks. Rice Lake Migratory Water- fowl Refuge. Duluth homesteads. Mud Lake migratory water- fowl. Littlefork farms. Ethan Allen farms. Flat Lake Indian rehabilita- tion. Rainy River farms. Willmar farms. Brainerd farms. Minneapolis farms. Fergus Palls farms. Thief River Falls farms Greendale. Drummond settlers location. Lakewood settlers location Crandon settlers location. Necedah game. Black River game. Bad River Indian. Lac Court Oreilles Indian. Stockbridge Indian Mill Bluff roadside park. Drummond. Lakewood-Crandon farms. Camp McCoy military. Central Wisconsin farms. Summit farms. Washburn farms. Portage farms. Phillips farms. Shawano farms. RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROJECTS REGION 2 LEGEND ACTIVE PROJECTS PROJECTS BEING DEVELOPED ^ PROJECTS COMPLETED SUBURBAN RESETTLEMENT TYPE SR RESETTLEMENT SH FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RURAL RESETTLEMENT TYPE RR RESETTLEMENT RH FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RF FORMER F.E R.A. RL COOPERATIVE a COMMUNITY SERVICE Ri INDIAN LAND ACQUISITION TYPE LA AGRICULTURAL LB MIGRATORY WATERFOWL (BIOL. SUR.) LI INDIAN LP PARKS (RECREATIONAL) LO OTHER TYPE OTHER PROJECTS FS FOREST SERVICE IH INDIAN (FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS) ^ RESETTLEMENT PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND UNO ACQUISITION PROJECTS ON WHICH LAND OEVELOPWENT (LOl WORK IS IN PROGRESS GRAPH RA-AO 1 1 (REVISION 2) 5-9-36 PREPARED BY PROCEDURE DIVISION (J7S91- -26 (Face p. 60^ No. 1 RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROJECTS GRAPH RA-AD 12 (REVISIQN 2) 5-9-36 PREPARED BY PROCEDURE OJVISION LEGEND ACTIVE PROJECTS PROJECTS BEING DEVELOPED ^ PROJECTS COMPLETED SUBURBAN RESETTLEMENT TYPE- SR RESETTLEMENT SH FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RURAL RESETTLEMENT TYPE RR RESETTLEMENT RH FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RF FORMER F.E R A. RL COOPERATIVE a COMMUNITY SERVICE Ri INDIAN LAND ACQUISITION TYPE LA AGRICULTURAL LB MIGRATORY WATERFOWL (BIOL. SUR.) H INDIAN LP PARKS (RECREATIONAL) LO OTHER TYPE OTHER PROJECTS FS FOREST SERVICE IH INDIAN (FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS) ^ RESETTLEMENT PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS ON WHICH LAND DEVELOPMENT iLD] WORK IS IN PROGRESS 67891—36 (Face p. 60) No. 2 RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM 61 REGION 3 Project no. RH-IL 2 *LD and LA-IL 3. *LD and LP-IL 5. SH-IL 7 LO-IL 11 RF-IL 13- RR-IL 14. SH-IN 2 *LD and LA-IN 3. *LD and LA-IN 4. *LD and LP-IN 5. *LD and LP-IN 6. RR-IN 10-- RR-IN 11. SH-IO 1.--. *LD and LA-IO 2. SR-MO 2. *LD and LA-MO 3. *LD and LA-MO 4. LB-MO 5 *LD and LP-MO 6. *LD and LP-MO 7- *LD and LP-MO 8. LB-MO 9 RR-MO 12. RR-MO 16. RR-MO 17. SR-OH 1- *LD and LA-OH 4_ *LD and LA-OH 5. *LD and LA-OH 6. SH-OH 12-,.- RR-OH 17. RR-OH 21. RR-OH 23. City ILLINOIS Libertyville. Robb Grafton West Frankfort. Garbondale Robb. INDIANA Decatur. Shoals... Nashville. Versailles.. Winemac- . Vincennes. Greensburg. IOWA Granger Centerville. MISSOURI St. Louis Salem Columbia. St. Louis-. Kaiser Troy Knobnoster. Napier Not known. Sedalia. OHIO Cincinnati. Zanesville.- McArthur. Chillicothe. Youngstown. Not known. Chillieothe. Not known. County Lake Pope—- Jersey --. Franklin - Williamson. _.- Pope, Johnson. Gallatin, White-- Adams Martin Brown Ripley. _ Pulaski _._ Greene, Daviess, Martin, Knox, Brown. Bartholomew, Shelby, Rush, Decatur. Dallas Lee and 11 - St. Louis - --- Dent Boone Chariton - Miller, Camden Lincoln Johnson -__ Holt Lawrence and 5 New Madrid, Pemiscot. . Moniteau, Cooper, Mor- gan, and Pettis. Hamilton. Muskingum Vinton Ross and Hocking Mahoning Tuscarawas Ross, Hocking, Vinton.. _ Ashland, Wayne. Project Lake County homesteads. Dixon Springs pasture and erosion control. Pere Marquette parks. Southern Illinois homesteads. Crab Orchard Creek Reservoir and recreational. Dixon Springs. Gallatin farms. Decatur homesteads. Southern Indiana agricultural demonstration. Southern Indiana bean blos- som agricultural demonstra- tion. Versailles Park. Winemac land. Wabash farms. Valley farms. Granger homesteads. Southern Iowa pasture im- provement. Community housing including utilities and street, 3,000 units. Meramec submarginal land agricultural. University of Missouri game preservation. Swan Lake Migratory Water- fowl Refuge. Lake of the Ozarks. Cuivre River recreational. Montserrat recreational. Squaw Creek migratory water- fowl refuge. Sac River farms. New Madrid farms. Osage Valley farms. Greenhills. Southeastern Ohio soil erosion and forestry. Zaleski forest rehabilitation. Ross-Hocking land readjust- ment. Mahoning Gardens home- steads. Tuscarawas farms. Scioto farms. Notheastern Ohio farms. 62 KESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM REGION 4 Project no. *LDand LA-KY 1.... *LD and LA-KY 2. *LD and LA-KY 3. *LD and LP-KY 4. FS-KY 10 . RR-KY 13 RR-KY 14 RH-NO 2 *LD and LA-NC 3. *LD and LA-NC 4. *LDand LP-NC 8- — RF-NC 10_-_- *LDand LP-NC 11.- LB-NC 14 RH-NC 15 .._ RR-NC 17.-... - RI-NC 22.. RR-NC 23-. LB-TN 3. SH-TN 5 — -. ♦LDand LA-TN 6.. ♦LDand LA-TN 7.. *LD and LA-TN 8-. *LDand LA-TN 9-. *LD and LP-TN 11. *LD and LP-TN 12. *LD and LP-TN 13. RR-TN 15. RR-TN 17. RR-TN 26. RR-TN 27- RR-TN 29. RR-TN 30. RF-VA 1 *LD and LA-VA 2. *LD and LA-VA 3. •LD and LA-VA 4. *LD and LP-VA 6. *LD and LP-VA 6. *LD and LP-VA 7. City KENTUCKY Pineville. Princeton. do Louisville. London. _. NORTH CAROLINA Willard Hoffman.-. Elizabethtown. . . Raleigh Sparta New Holland. Enfield , Pembroke. TENNESSEE Not known Crossville. Lexington. Henderson. Lebanon... Livingston. Dickson.. Memphis. Pikeville.. Lexington. Lebanon.. Somerville. Not known. VIRGINIA Luray . Farmville. do .do. *LDand LP-VA 8 _ ♦LDand LP-VA 9.. SH-VA 10 *LD and LP-VA 13. RR-VA 19. RR-VA 20. SH-WV 1 SH-WV 2 *LD and LA-WV 4. RF-WV 8..... RR-WV 13.,. RR-WV 14- -. Chesterfield. Joplin Luray Floyd Manassas.--.-. Newport News. Richmond Martinsville.--. Fredericksburg- . WEST VIRGINIA Elkins Reedsville Buckhannon Redhouse... Parkersburg. Not known. County Knox, Bell, Leslie, Harlan Caldwell and Christian. . Trigg, Lyon and Marshall Meade Laurel, Whitley Laurel, Knox Christian, Trigg.. Pender 5 counties Bladen and 2 _ Wake.. Halifax Surry and 5 Hyde .- Nash and 2__ Hoke... Robeson. Wake and 6 Lake and Obion. Cumberland Henderson, Carroll, Ben- son. Hardeman, Chester Wilson Overton and Clay .. Dickson Shelby Van Buren and Bledsoe.. Henderson, Decatur Wilson and Sumner Haywood, Fayette, Har- deman. Carroll and 2 Hamblen, Grainger and 1 Franklin, Coffee, and 1.-- Page - ._- Buckingham, Appomat- tox. Prince Edward Cumberland Chesterfield Prince William, Stafford. Rappahannock, Albe- marle. Floyd, Franklin, Patrick- Prince William Warwick Hanover, Pulaski, Am- herst. Henry King George Randolph Preston Upshur, Webster Putnam Wirt, Wood Upshur Project Kentucky Ridge Forest land agricultural. Princeton game refuge. Coalins forest and game refuge. Otter Creek Park. Sublimity Farms. Laurel-Knox. Christian and Trigg Farms. Penderlea homesteads. Sand Hills land use. Jones and Salters Lakes land agricultural. Crabtree Creek Park acquisi- tion. Tillery. Blue Ridge Parkway. Mattamuskeet Bird Refuge. Bricks homesteads. Blues Bridge. Pembroke. North Carolina tenant pur- chase. Lake Isom Migratory Water fowl Refuge. Cumberland homesteads. Natchez-Trace Forest. Madison - Hardeman - Chester Forest and park. Wilson County Cedar Forest, agricultural. Overton County game refuge, flood control and forestation. Montgomery-Bell Park, Shelby Forest park. Falls Creek Falls recreational area. Cub Creek. Cairo Bend. Haywood. Tennessee tenant purchase. Holston Valley. Rutledge grant. Shenandoah homesteads. Appomattox-Buckingham For est. Prince Edward Wild Life Preserve, forestation. Cumberland agricultural dem- onstration. Swift Creek Park. Chopawamsic Vacation Park. Shenandoah National Park extension. Blue Ridge Parkway. Bull Run Park. Newport News Homesteads. Wayside Parks recreational area. Fieldale. Hop farms. Tygart Valley homesteads. Arthurdale. Kanawha Head Wild Life pre- serve. Redhouse farms. Little Kanawha. Upshur farms. o o n LEGEND ACTIVE PROJECTS PROJECTS BEING DEVELOPED ^ PROJECTS COMPLETED RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROJECTS REGION 4 SUBURBAN RESETTLEMENT TYPE SR RESETTLEMENT SH FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RURAL RESETTLEMENT TYPE RR RESETTLEMENT RH FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RF FORMER F.E.R.A. RL COOPERATIVE & COMMUNITY SERVICE Rl INDIAN LAND ACQUISITION TYPE LA AGRICULTURAL LB MIGRATORY WATERFOWL (BIOL. SUR.) LI INDIAN LP PARKS (RECREATIONAL) LO OTHER TYPE OTHER PROJECTS FS FOREST SERVICE m INDIAN (FORMER SUBSISTENCE tlOMESTEADS) ^ RESETTLEMENT PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS ON WHICH LAND DEVELOPMENT [LD3 WORK IS IN PROGRESS OUttj. / /GRANT ' Franklin # 1 Jo 4 ^ /V 1 'HAMPSIlIRe, 7^ I He mSjSnburl^^^^" , ?■.,l^«>Kil^ , Y T a/ I* CREE N I E R oij \ -tiwisbunSo/ •"'^j/'/"-^*' \ALBbI*ARLE/~-s_ LOiU I S / ©PaI'myi ' L^nchbur fenoUe rLOvAKHYegl > • V / 1.B _ a, « """" LP Xi'-H ippomfi FliAMKLIM RocViyMounI / Qhatham' •/l-*^ ^ , P1TTSY1.VANIA' H A ... , ^ 1 V^ p-^ Morga n' >-'Marii!o'-^-Xu'R KE ■■■V^^ /cat ./ POLK \ r^^^S lu s fflColunkbuW / =7'"">i>l Enbur^< LUNENBU tkFA/iV./ ^ --o,^<»fl.ENBU^ • '"Oj H6i(!pi5-\(;,rthage> ^ A / lUiiW H ARlffeT \ ig:-A-SAMPS OjLlj i^** -<\Gr«.n^iIle'* , .AlehoirJ Clmfon *aWm<^ 1 ^/ Tf^to..^^- N ' . Bayfa pri VPArftl'ci jBem ii \ oKananavillo * — ^— i J -.0. , AST RH^ ^ GRAPH RA-AD 13 (REVISION 2) 5-9-36 PREPARED BY PROCEDURE DIVISION 67891—36 (Face p. 62) No. 1 RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROJECTS REGION 5 LEGEND ACTIVE PROJECTS PROJECTS BEING DEVELOPED ^ PROJECTS COMPLETED SUBURBAN RESETTLEMENT TYPE SR RESETTLEMENT SH FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RURAL RESETTLEMENT TYPE RR RESETTLEMENT RH FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RF FORMER *F.E R.A. RL COOPERATIVE 8 COMMUNITY SERVICE Rt INDIAN LAND ACQUISITION TYPE LA AGRICULTURAL LB MIGRATORY WATERFOWL (BIOL. SUR.) LI INDIAN LP PARKS (RECREATIONAL) LO OTHER TYPE OTHER PROJECTS FS FOREST SERVICE iH INDIAN (FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS) RESETTLEMENT PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS ON WHICH LAND DEVELOPMENT [LD] WORK IS IN PROGRESS GRAPH RA-AD 14 (REVISION 2) 5-9-36 PREPARED BY PROCEDURE DIVISION 67891—36 (Face p. 69) No. 2 RESETTLEMENT ADMIKISTRATIOIT PROGRAM 63 REGION 6 Project number SH-AL 1 SH-AL 2 SH-AL 3 SH-AL 4 SH-AL 5 *LD and LA-AL 8. *LD and LA-AL 9.. *LD and LA-AL 10. *LD and LP-AL 11. SH-AL 12 . SH-AL 13 RF-AL 16 RF-AL 17 RR-AL 27 RR-AL 28 *LD and LA-FL 2. *LD and LA-FL 3. *LD and LA-FL 4. LB-FL 5 LI-FL 6 *LD and LA-FL 10. RR-FL 18. RR-FL 19. RR-FL 20. RH-GA 2 *LD and LA-GA 3-,. *LD and LA-GA 7- . *LD and LA-GA 8- _. *LD and LP-GA 9.... *LD and LP-GA 11... *LD and LP-GA 12... LB-GA 13 RF-GA 15. RF-GA 16. RF-GA 17. RR-GA 18. RR-GA 19. RR-GA 20. RR-GA 21. RR-GA 22. RR-GA 23. RR-GA 24. RR-GA 25. RR-GA 26. RR-GA 27- SH-SC 2 *LD and LA-SC 3 *LD and LA-SC 4. *LD and LA-SC 5-.. *LD and LP-SC 7.... *LD and LP-SC 8.... RF-SC 9 LB-SC 11 . *LD and LP-SC 12... LB-SC 13 RH-SC 16. RR-SC 19. RR-SC 20. City ALABAMA Trussville Pinson do.— Birmingham. do Tuskegee Greensboro. Ozark Birmingham. Jasper do_._ Scottsboro--. Elba... Auburn FT. GRID A Tallahassee.. Brooksville. Milton St. Marks.., Welaka. Osceola. GEORGIA Monticello.-- Eatonton Cornelia Waj'^cross. Madison Crawfordville. Chipley New Holland - Irwinville. Eatonton- Cairo Fort Valley. SOUTH CAROLINA Taylor Clemson College - McBee Sumter... Cheraw.- York Ashwood. Orangeburg. County Jefferson. ....-do..- do.— do.... do.... Macon. _. Bibb, Hale, Perry and 1. Dale-Coffee Shelby Walker .....do Jackson Coffee Morgan and 19. DalIas-3 Wakulla, Leon, Jefferson. . Citrus, Hernando, Pasco. . Escambia, Santa Rosa, and 1. Wakulla Project Glades.. Putnam. Leon, Jefferson, Madison. . Polk, Hardee, Hillsboro, Manatee. Escambia, Santa Rosa Jasper Putnam, Jones, Jasper Habersham, Banks, Ste- phens. Brantley, Ware Morgan. -- Taliaferro. Harris Chatham. Irwin Putnam.^. Grady Wheeler and Laurens.. Houston Gwinnett..... Henry Lee, Sumter, Terrell... Lowndes and Brooks. . Worth Bartow and Cherokee. Bartow and 25 Houston and Peach.. _ Greenville Anderson, Oconee, and Picken. Kershaw and Chesterfield. Sumter Chesterfield York, Cherokee Lee Jasper — Aiken, Kershaw, and 5 Charleston . Orangeburg. -_ Saluda, Lexington, New- berry. Anderson and 15 Trussville homesteads. Palmer homesteads, Palmerdale homesteads; > Gardendale homesteads. Greenwood homesteads Tuskegee planned land use demonstration West Alabama planned land use demonstration. Pea River planned land use demonstration. Oak Mountain recreational. Bankhead farms, unit A. Bankhead farms, unit B. Cumberland Mountains. Coffee. Alabama tenant purchase. Prairie farms. Wakulla land agricultural dem*- onstration. Withlacoochee River land agri- cultural demonstration. Pensacola land agricultural demonstration. St. Marks addition migratory waterfowl. Seminole. Welaka wildlife and forest conservation Osceola farms. Bayhead. Escambia. Piedmont homesteads. Plantation Piedmont. Northeast Georgia upland game conservation. Georgia coastal flatwoods up- land game. Hard Labor Creek Park. Alex H. Stephens Memorial Parks. Pine Mountain Park. Savannah River migratory- waterfowl refuge. Irwinville Briar Patch. Wolfe Creek. Wheeler farms. Houston farms. Gwinnett farms. McDonough farms. Dawson farms. Lowndes farms. Worth farms Etowah farms. Georgia tenant purchase. Fort Valley farms Greenville homesteads. Clemson College community conservation. Sandhills agricultural demon^ stration Poinsett forest land agriculture, Cheraw recreational area. Kings Mountain Park. Ashwood plantation Savannah River Waysides Park Cape Romain additional bio- logical. Orangeburg farms. Saluda farms. ' - South Carolina tenant chase. puT- RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM REGION 6 Project no. *LD and LA-AK 1_ *LD and LA-AK 2. *LD and LA-AK 3. *LD and LA-AK 4. ^LD and LA-AK 5. *LD and LA-AK 6. LB-AK 10 RF-AK 11. RR-AK 12. RR-AK 13. RR-AK 14. RR-AK 15. RR-AK 16. RR-AK 17. BR-AK 18. RR-AK 19. *LD and LA-LA 1. *LD and LA-LA 2. LB-LA 3_ LB-LA 4 LB-LA 5 RR-LA 12. RR-LA 13. RR-LA 14. SH-MS 4 SH-MS 5 SH-MS 6 SH-MS 7 *LD and LA-MS 8._.. *LD and LA-MS 9 RH-MS 12. RR-MS 14. RR-MS 17. RR-MS 18- RR-MS 20. RR-MS 21. BR-MS 24. City ARKANSAS Paris Fayetteville— Marianna. .do. .do. Van Buren. St. Charles. Tucker Lake view.. LOUISIANA Minden Homer. Minden. MISSISSIPPI McComb... Meridian Tupelo . Hattiesburg. Starkville... Okolona. Richton Starkville Mound Bayou. Jackson Okolona... Cleveland Tupelo County Logan, Yell,-. Washington, Benton Lee and Phillips ._ St. Francis Prairie Washington, Crawford Monroe, Desha, Arkansas, Phillips. Jefferson Philhps Poinsett Jefferson Crawford, Pope, Franklin, Conway, Johnson, and Faulkner. Logan, Yell, Franklin, Perry, Conway, and Sebastian St. Francis, I^ee, Prairie, Phillips, and Monroe. Benton, Madison, Carroll, and Washington, Chicot and II Webster and Claiborne Claiborne Carneron, Jefferson-Davis. Cameron. Plaquemines Terrebonne Bossier, Webster, Bien- ville. East Carroll and II Pike , Lauderdale Lee __ Forrest Winston and 3 Pontotoc, Chickasaw. Perry. Oktibbeha and 8 Bolivar and 2 Hinds _- Chickasaw and 5 Washington and 9 Lee - REGION 7 Atchison and 12 Reno, Sedgwick, Harvey, Sumner. Chautauqua Chautauqua, Montgom- ery. Project Magazine Mountain, forestry, game, and recreational. Northwest Arkansas, forestry, pasture making, grazing, and recreational. Eastern Arkansas (Crowleys Ridge), forestry, grazing, and recreational. Eastern Arkansas (Forest City), forestry, grazing, and recreational. Eastern Arkansas (Le Vails Bluff), forestry, grazing, and recreational. Boston Mountain, forestry, grazing, and recreational. White River migratory water- fowl refuge. Wright's plantation. Lake view. Campbell. Lake Dick. Central Arkansas Valley farms Western farms. Arkansas Valley Crowley Ridge. Northwest Arkansas. Arkansas tenant-purchase. Northwest Louisiana forestry and pasture making. Claiborne Parish, land use and adjustment. Lacassaine Bayou migratory waterfowl refuge. Sabine Lake migratory water- fowl refuge. Delta migratory waterfowl refuge. Terrebonne Delta Farms, Louisiana. Louisiana tenant-purchase. McComb homesteads. Magnolia homesteads. Tupelo homesteads. Hattiesburg homesteads. Northeast Mississippi, forest, conservation, and grazing, Natchez Trace Forest, pasture, game, and recreational. Rich ton homesteads. Northeast Mississippi farms. Mound Bayou. Hinds farms. Natchez Trace. Mississippi tenant purchase. Tupelo suburban gardens. RR-KA 4 RR-KA 5 RR-KA 7 LA-KA 8 Northeastern Kansas farms. South central Kansas farm'^. Bee Creek. Bee Creek Lake. RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROJECTS REGION 6 I 0 O Nl \_ HarrisotP 'Hun^ville1-r — -I Im A O I S O N ■ Yeli'ville Mountain hoftie *•' U MT O N ^ t\i- ^ ._H.> ^? Jasper k "iT I N, 1 Mountain Vitew 7 I Is HAR P' „ .ZARD \^ Pow>,atane I MabtaurneEvemngShada i lav/renc J^_.,./i>^arJ< Clarksville I Clinton e j r VAN BURCN i E I" Soarcv .1 Md ,^001 sW.IUron ; YELL pfj^^ Y "7^171]^ ' li, IPUC - •- ■* • little: ro "S —'-^ '-'cvi^A /v' (saline'"'-] _^Men ' -^P O L K I, 5- I Mountida «ARLANc'-1, , """"y" I HOTSPRINCS |M0NTG0MERYHot5prinj'- • -! CT^i- Ma vern' « \iTHOTSPR /i~)»ni.Ani ' cjMurfradsboro ri> j Ueyue ^enl , «f >^c L A (» k p^VlER I"!" -] \ NasKivill^ little: rocks OTO I lIo n o k e Senton , r 1\ ;\g r a/Jt' Pine'BK WashingtonrVb A yi S HCMPStfAO/ ,V |NEVAOA I itexarkaifa \ — > — ' ^~LewisvtltBliH — -L oMagno COLtAMBIA ' Shorid /^R -R K aIn J MARSHMLL 1 J E N T.l) N , - , O < A3hlanclrj: AUCOl RPAHL,._ J_-\ 2 7Ripleyi / i\o I ^oonevilloC ,PfYENT1SSj 1 D/A L L A SV, V \ \lCLEVi CHICOT f - -R ^ \|OUACK ta j W^Jchitoches^ \( / fV^X:/ ^.Manr^^^'^n-'^Vn' ■ SABINe'"" ^olfai, > \ ^^/ r^^^Ew^-^^ ^ . LApXYETTE', \i ITAWAMBA ^Bafesville 1 , Prfntotoc y sjo 9,^ I mher' r .^9^.,, I Pitteboro' i/yRR\ . ^Jlferenada. ^-fTe^ADA ' I y ; j-J;(TOOMCRv' — .CA^LLLj^ /loi Valdeni. • '^HOCT ,1 " 1 WEBSTER jy. I WaltKall Brd« C L A i • I ^fJ^r- Lex^i^WrV' ATTALA pWlNsTTlON I N 0 X f B I oIehsSose / WEST / RR Y 1/ if /Yazoo City fi ', 1 r A K F ' ■ dPhJadelphia ^ <.A.^-TL r,:?!, i-j-^ . ^"'r-^^^^ 7 rTcTTlan^-;^-^^!!!^ N^X' ^ scott !neJto4^51, , M A D ijS dl Jonast/oro T ^ / " f / \ " ^' "1 jP"^ \ -^.L._l • \ i-,-^ Vwinniboro-. Yti^J) .^1 ' A^v \ I CBlumbiac^ VfRA^KLIn' ' , / I Fr a n k l I n ; ^uLj 1. r-!' WILKINSON I .ijii AMITE . .. o— - Libertv 1 / I. , ALL^N |V, ■Oberii^ V / (' r \ , , 'lljC/f FERSON) , / 1 C A L C A\S l j ,E U .1./ DAVIS , A p ■ CVAt CELIJ lV.llePlatt| /ST yAND / Z-"-,* <^^c^ «i -A^ • jiOonaldsonyTt I Abbeville* P N 1 I VERMILION iACl4sOtl--^T forest Brandon _ N K I N t~ - ' Jbrlrtjibson / v ' ••< 1 O^NE 1 c O P l(A H Y S 1 M/S 0,N I ^ |lazlehurstf N . V H 1 SMITH !/Pauldi4 ;/ I '• ^>Mendephal.( fay;]JASPEp^ \ icovNwTOH, JOfi'^feS ®Kollins fk^-J Vi'aynesboroe "« W A Y l^L. lugusta ' GREENE,] ^Y^ LeaUesviT .^lii.tdnSAlNJ.'T U -'HELENA A . ""Vr'&J /^bpla^ville" '^^'^ j J Amite >_ _ ^ II / , , \ 1 loTc^qJ Hamm'pn^ j Cov^,,t^n^ ;'. ltWU?IROUGtoSpW\ille j sTt^iMMAVNY A UaN V- It LtVINteSTONN \ I i \ / V , !. J- Lucedafe~o, ^ ! ^ -J ^livinig%tonN \ . I JACKSOl iHARrtlSpNi / I Gulfportg tiachc E rIr E B O N N E^^ -S-' GRAPH RA-AD 15 (REVISION 2) 5-9-36 PREPARED BY PROCEDURE DIVISION LEGEND ACTIVE PROJECTS PROJECTS BEING DEVELOPED * ^ ]| PROJECTS COMPLETED SUBURBAN RESETTLEMENT TYPE SR RESETTLEMENT Sl^ FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RURAL RESETTLEMENT TYPE RR RESETTLEMENT RH FORMER SUBSISTENCB HOMESTEADS RF FORMER F.E R.A. RL COOPERATIVE a COMMUNITY SERVICE Ri INDIAN LAND ACQUISITION TYPE LA AGRICULTURAL LB MIGRATORY WATERFOWL (BIOL. SUR.) LI INDIAN LP parks (RECREATIONAL) LO OTHER TYPE 0TI4ER PROJECTS FS FOREST SERVICE IH INDIAN (FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS) ^ RESETTLEMENT PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS ON WHICH LAND DEVELOPMENT [LD] WORK IS IN PROGRESS 67891—36 (t^acep. 64) No. 1 RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROJECTS REGION 7 Cavlolierl LEGEND ACTIVE PROJECTS PROJECTS BQN6 DEVELOPED PROJECTS COMPLETED SUBURBAN RESETTLEMENT TYPE SR RESETTLEMENT SH FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RURAL RESETTLEMENT TYPE RR RESETTLEMENT RH FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RF FORMER F.ER.A. RL COOPERATIVE a COMMUNITY SERVICE Ri INDIAN LAND ACQUISITION TYPE LA AGRICULTURAL LB MIGRATORY WATERFOWL (BIOL. SUR.) LI INDIAN LP PARKS (RECREATIONAL) LO OTHER TYPE OTHER PROJECTS FS FOREST SERVICE IH INDIAN (FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS) RESETTLEMENT PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUJSITlffiV PROJECTS ON WHICH LAND DEVELOPMENT [LD) WORK IS IN PROGRESS Pawnee 0(jy( ^ ' neVw»* b^R*" RR' I ..WrSjreUnd t>*CHSp>tx,v i ote A < ~1 \ / \iYi .■"^^ 1--^ lonaas CilYi A Q GRAPH RA-AD 16 (REVISION Z) 5-9-36 PREPARED BY PROCEDURE DIVISION 67891—36 (Face p. 64) No. 2 EESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM REGION 7— Continued 65 Project no. *LD & LA-NB 1. LB-NB 2 LB-NB 3 LB-NB 4. RF-NB 6. RF-NB 7-. RF-NB 8-. RF-NB 9- RF-NB 10_ RF-NB 11- RF-NB 12. RF-NB 13. RF-NB 15. RR-NB 18. *LD & LA-ND 1. *LD & LA-ND 2, *LD & LA-ND 6. LI-ND 10 LI-ND 11 *LD & LP-ND 12. LB-ND 14 LB-ND 15- LB-ND 16- LB-ND 17- LB-ND 18. RR-ND 20. RR-ND 22. RR-ND 24- RR-ND 25- RR-ND 26. RR-ND 27- *LD & LA-SD 1. *LD & LA-SD 2. *LD & LA-SD 4- *LD & LA-SD 5. LI-SD 7 - LI-SD 8-. LI-SD 9-. LI-SD 10. LI-SD 13. *LD & LP-SD 14. *LD & LP-SD 15. LB-SD 18 LB-SD 19 LB-SD 20. LB-SD 21. RF-SD 23. RR-SD 28. RR-SD 29. RR-SD 30. RR-SD 31. RR-SD 32. RF-SD 33. City NEBRASKA Chadron Alliance. Valentine. Valentine and Wood Lake. Omaha Scotts BlufE- Fairbury Loup City.^- None--- Grand Island. Falls City— . Waterlool— Not known. NORTH DAKOTA Watford City..-. do Lisbon. Fort Yates __ Ddvils Lake- Dickinson— Pingree Kenmare. Coteau... Upham.. Foxholm. Watford City. do- Lisbon - SOUTH DAKOTA Rapid City Chamberlain Timber Lake. Onida Pine Ridge— . Rosebud.. do—-. Pierre Mobridge. Philip Hermosa Martin Lake Andes. Waubay Columbia.. - County Dawes and 2. Garden Cherry do— — Douglas- Scotts BlufE Jefferson Sherraan Buffalo Hall Richardson Dakota Douglas Dawes and Sioux. McKenzie. BiUings and Golden Val- ley. Ransom, Richland Sioux and 3 Benson -- Billings and McKenzie Foster, Stutsman Burke and Ward Burke and Mountrail Bottineau, McHenry - Renville, Ward, Foxholm. McKenzie do- - do - Red River Valley, Grand Forks Trail, Steele, Cass. Ransom, Cass, Barnes Richland, Ransom Pennington and 3 Lyman and 3 Dewey Sully Washabaugh and 3. Todd do Hyde and 3. Dewey Pennington and 3. Custer Bennett Charles Mix Day— . Brown. Minnehaha Brookings and 3 -. Lyman, Jones, and Stanley Lyman, Jones, and Tripp.. Jackson, Custer, Penning- ton, and Fall River. Pennington Lawrence and Butte Project Pine Ridge land use readjust- ment. Crescent Lake Migratory Bird Rsfuge. Niobrara Migratory Bird Refuge. Valentine Lakes Migratory Bird Refuge. Ak-Sar-Ben Village (Douglas County farmsteads). Scotts Bluff farmsteads. Fairbury farmsteads. Loup City farmsteads. Kearney farmsteads. Grand Island farmsteads. Falls City farmsteads. South Sioux City farmsteads. Ak-Sar-Ben Village. Northwest Nebraska farms. Little Missouri land adjust ment (McKenzie). Little Missouri land adjust- ment. Sheyenne River land conser- vation. Standing Rock Indian. Fort Totten Indian. Roosevelt National Park. Arrow-wood Migratory Water- fowl Refuge. Des Lacs Migratory Waterfowl Refuge. Lostwood Lakes Migratory Waterfowl Refuge. Lower Souris Migratory Water fowl Refuge. Upper Souris Migratory Water- fowl Refuge. Little Missouri farms. Yellowstone Valley farms. McKenzie retirement homes. Red River Valley farms. Southeastern North Dakota farms. Ransom retirement homes. Badlands-Fall River land ac- quisition. South central South Dakota land adjustment. Little Moreau Game Refuge. Fort Sully Game Refuge. Pine Ridge Indian Reserva- tion. Cutmeat Indian. Antelope Indian. Lower Brule and Crow Creek. Cheyenne River Indian Reser- vation. Bad Lands Park. Custer State Park La Creek migratory waterfowl. Lake Andes migratory water- fowl. Waubay Migratory Waterfowl Refuge Sand Lake Migratory Water- fowl Refuge. Sioux Falls. Eastern South Dakota farms. South central South Dakota farms. White River farms. Southwestern South Dakota farms. Black Hills farms. Belle Fourche-Spearfish. 66 KESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGEAM REGION 8 Project no. *LD and LA-OK 1..-. *LD and LA-OK 2.... LI-0K4 LI-0K5-_ LI-0K6.__.— *LD and LP-OK 9. RR-OK 13- RR-OK 14- RR-OK 15. RR-OK 17. RF-OK 19- RR-OK 20. RR-OK 21- RR-OK 22- RR-OK 23. SH-TX 2 SH-TX 3 SH-TX 4— SH-TX 5 SH-TX 6 --- *LD and LA-TX 7.. RF-TX 10- RR-TX 16. RF-TX 18- RR-TX 19. RR-TX 21- RR-TX 22. RR-TX 24- RR-TX 25- RR-TX 26- LA-TX 28- Gity OKLAHOMA Stillwater Muskogee Ardmore. Boswell. TEXAS Beaumont---. Arlington Houston Three Rivers. Wichita Falls. Bonham Cooper Wichita Falls. San Antonio. Bonham. - Clarendon. County Payne and Noble- Muskogee - Delaware -- Adair. Haskell Carter .- Grady, McClain, and Garvin. Harper - Okfuskee— Muskogee and Wagoner— Bryan— _ Haskell and 6 ^— Tulsa and 6—- . Payne and 9 Garvin and 6... — Jefierson ------- Tarrant .- Harris. Live Oak Wichita Fannin Trinity Delta Wichita.-.- Harris Bexar and 3 Grayson and 29 Harrison and Panola..---. Fannin Nacogdochesland Angelina Armstrong, Briscoe, Don- ley, Hall. Project Central Oklahoma, forestry, grazing, and recreational. Eastern Oklahoma, Cookson Hills, fish and game. Delaware, Indian rehabilita- tion. Adair, Indian rehabilitation. Haskell, Indian rehabilitation. Lake Murray, State park ex- tension. Washita Valley farms. La Verne. Boley. Eastern Oklahoma farms. Bryan farms. Ozark farms. Tulsa. North Central Oklahoma farms. Oklahoma, tenant purchase. Beauxart gardens. Dalworthington gardens. Houston gardens. Three Rivers gardens. Wichita gardens. Northeast Texas, grazing, game, and recreational. Woodlake. Delta. Wichita Valley. Highland. Inter-Coastal Prairie. Texas, tenant purchase. Harrison. Fannin. East Texas (Nacogdoches). Texas, grazing and upland game. RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROJECTS REGION 8 LEGEND ACTIVE PROJECTS PROJECTS BEING DEVELOPED * PROJECTS COMPLETED SUBURBAN RESETTLEMENT TYPE SR RESETTLEMENT SH FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RURAL RESETTLEMENT TYPE RR RESETTLEMENT RH FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RF FORMER F E R A. RL COOPERATIVE ft COMMUNITY SERVICE Rl INDIAN LAND ACQUISITION TYPE LA AGRICULTURAL LB MIGRATORY WATERFOWL (BIOL. SUR.) LI INDIAN LP PARKS (RECREATIONAL) LO OTHER TYPE OTHER PROJECTS FS FOREST SERVICE IH INDIAN (FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS) GRAPH RA-AD 17 (REVISION 2) 6-9-36 PREPARED BY PROCEDURE OiVISIONi -K- RESETTLEMENT PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS ON WHICH LAND OEVELOPKCNT [LO] WORK IS IN PROGRESS: 07891—36 (Pace p. 66) No. 1 ENT ADMINISTRATION PROJECTS REGION 9 DAGGETT' GRAPH RA-AD 18 (REVISION 2) 5-9-36 PREPARED BY PROCEDURE DIVISION LEGEND ACTIVE PROJECTS PROJECTS BEING DEVELOPED % ^ J PROJECTS COMPLETED SUBURBAN RESETTLEMENT TYPE SR RESETTLEMENT SH FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RURAL RESETTLEMENT TYPE RR RESETTLEMENT RH FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RF FORMER F.E.R.A. RL COOPERATIVE a COMMUNITY SERVICE Rl INDIAN LAND ACQUISITION TYPE LA AGRICULTURAL LB MIGRATORY WATERFOWL (BIOL. SUR.) LI INDIAN LP PARKS (RECREATIONAL) LO OTHER TYPE OTHER PROJECTS FS FOREST SERVICE IH INDIAN (FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS) 4(- RESETTLEMENT PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS ON WHICH LAND DEVELOPMENT [LD] WORK IS IN PROGRESS 891 — 36 (Face p. 66) No. 2 RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PEOGEAM 67 REGION 9 Project no. SH-AZ 2. RR-AZ 6. RR-AZ 7. RR-AZ 8- SH-OF 3 SH-OF 4 *LD & LP-OF 6. RF-OF 16- IH-OF 17.. RR-OF 18. RR-CF 19- RF-CF 25. RF-OF 26- RF-OF 27- RF-OF 28- RF-OF 29- RF-CF 30- RF-CF 31. RF-CF 32- RF-CF 33. RR-OF 35. RR-CF 36. RR-NV 5. *LD & LA-UT 2. *LD & LA-UT 3. RR-UT 10. RR-UT 11. RR-UT 13. RR-UT 14. Oity ARIZONA Phoenix Not known - Phoenix CALIFORNIA Reseda El Monte. Oaspar Marysville.. Arvin Modesto San Jose Calwa Oity. Kingsburg-. Shafter Brawley Calipatria. Fresno NEVADA Not known-- UTAH Pangvitch. Tooele Not known. Price— Not known. Widtsoe Oounty Maricopa. Pinal.---. Maricopa. Yuma Los Angeles. do Mendocino.. Yold and 14.... Lake Orange. Santa Barbara. Yuba- Kern Stanislaus Santa Olara Fresno Tulare Kern Imperial do- Tulare. San Bernardino. Lyon. Garfield Juab, Tooele. Uintah.. Oarbon. Utah.... Garfield. Project Phoenix homesteads, unit B. Casa Grande Valley. Arizona p3,rt-time farms. Yuma Island. San Fernando homesteads. E 1 Monte homesteads. Mendocino woodlands recre- ational demonstration. Oalifornia migratory camps. Lake Oounty homesteads. Santa Ana gardens. San Marcos. Marysville migratory camp. Arvin migratory camp. Modesto migratory camp. Santa Clara migratory camp. Fresno migratory camp. Tulare migratory camp. Shafter migratory camp. Imperial migratory camp, unit 1. Imperial migratory camp, unit 2. San Joaquin Valley part-time farms Citrus Belt Valley part-time farms. Lyon farms. Widtsoe land-use adjustment. Central Utah dry-land agri- cultural. Green River farms. Price River. Elberta. Widtsoe farms. 68 RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM REGION 10 Project no. *LD and LA-CO 2. *LD and LA-CO 3- SH-CO 5... RR-CO 7- RR-CO 10. RR-CO 13. RH-MT 1.... *LD and LA-MT 2. *LD and LA-MT 3._.- *LD and LA-MT 4-.__ LI-MT 6 LI-MT 8 LI-MT 9 LB-MT 13 LB-MT 14- LB-MT 15. RR-MT 21. RR-MT 22. RR-MT 23. RR-MT 25. RI-MT 30.. RI-MT 31.. RR-MT 32. City COLOEADO Colorado Springs. Briggsdale Denver Alamosa MONTANA Malta- do. Roundup.. Miles City. Not known. Harlem Browning- _ Malta - Medicine Lake- Dillon *LD and LA-WY 1— . *LD and LP-WY 2..._ RR-WY 4 .... RR-WY 6 RR-WY 8 RR-WY 10 Malta. WYOMING Douglas Guernsey. . Not known. Lingle Not known. do County El Paso, Douglas, and Teller. Weld... Denver Mesa— Montrose and Delta Rio Grande, Alamosa, and 1. Phillips Phillips, Valley, and Blaine. Musselshell and 3 Prairie and Fallon. Valley, Roosevelt. Blaine, Phillips... Glacier, Pondera. . Phillips.... Sheridan, Roosevelt. Beaverhead Blaine, Phillips, Valley.. Phillips Teton... Teton, Cascade Chouteau Blaine Custer Converse, Weston, Camp- bell, and Crook. Platte... - do___ Goshen.. Fremont. Sheridan. Project Fountain Creek soil erosion control. Weld County land readjust- ment project. Denver homesteads. Grand Valley. Uncompahgre. Bower-Morgan-Waverly farms. Malta homesteads. Milk River northern Montana land adjustment. Musselshell central Montana land agricultural. Lower Yellowstone land use adjustment. Fort Peck, Indian. Fort Belknap, Indian. Blackfeet Reservation, Indian. Lake Bowdoin migratory waterfowl. Medicine Lake migratory waterfowl. Red Rock migratory water- fowl. Milk River farms. Beaver Creek. Floweree farms. Fairfield bench. Rocky Boy. Fort Belknap. Kinsey flat. Thunder Basin, Wyoming land ment. Lake Guernsey park. Wheatland. Lingle. Riverton. Sheridan. northeast readjust- RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROJECTS REGION 10 o o □ LEGEND ACTIVE PROJECTS PROJECTS BEING DEVELOPED ^ PROJECTS COMPLETED SUBURBAN RESETTLEMENT TYPE SR RESETTLEMENT SH FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RURAL RESETTLEMENT TYPE RR RESETTLEMENT RH FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RF FORMER F.E R.A. RL COOPERATIVE a COMMUNITY SERVICE m INDIAN LAND ACQUISITION TYPE LA AGRICULTURAL LB MIGRATORY WATERFOWL (BIOL. SUR.) LI INDIAN LP PARKS (RECREATIONAL) LO OTHER TYPE OTHER PROJECTS FS FOREST SERVICE IH INDIAN (FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS) At RESETTLEMENT PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTlOM AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS ON WHICH LAND OEVELOPH€NT [LD] WORK IS IN PROGRESS tl O NTE Z UM A ucsAvcfiotr' \ ^TiONALnuiin • -'^ PLATA i 7 \ ^(j^Ourtn^o I Ptogosa Springs / GRAPH RA-AD_19 (REVISION 2) 5-9-36 PREPARED BY PROCEDURE DIVISION 67891-— 36 (^^ace p. 68) No. 1 RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROJECTS REGION II LEGEND ACTIVE PROJECTS PROJECTS BEING DEVELOPED ^ PROJECTS COMPLETED SUBURBAN RESETTLEMENT TYPE SR RESETTLEMENT SH FORf^ER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RURAL RESETTLEMENT TYPE RR RESETTLEMENT RH FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RF FORMER F E R A- RL jCOOPERATIVE a COMMUNIT.Y SERVICE Rl INDIAN LAND ACQUISITION TYPE LA AGRICULTURAL LB MIGRATORY WATERFOWL (BIOL. SUR.) LI INDIAN LP PARKS (RECREATIONAL) LO OTHER TYPE OTHER PROJECTS FS FOREST SERVICE IH INDIAN (FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS) RESETTLEMENT PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS ON WHICH LAND DEVELOPMENT [LD] WORK IS IN PROGRESS fCURRY; Old Boac'h mmi RA-AP 20 (REVISION 2) 5-9-36 PREPARED ay PROCEDURE DIVISION 67891—36 (Face p. 69) No. 2 RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM 69 REGION 11 Project no. *LD and LA-ID 1... LWD 2 RR-ID 4 -. RR-ID 5 *LD and LA-OR 2. *LD and LA-OR 3 *LD and LP-OR 4. LI-OR 5 LB-OR 7 RR-OR 9- RR-OR 10. RR-OR 12. RR-OR 13. RR-OR 17. SH-WA 1 *LD and LA-WA 2. RR-WA 5 RR-WA 6. RR-WA 7. City IDAHO Malad City. Malad City. OREGON Madras. Eugene. Toledo McMinnville. Corvallis. Bend WASHINGTON Longview Newport and Col- ville. Everett, Snoho- mish, and Mon- roe. Locke Colville County Oneida and Cassia. Power, Bannock, and Bingham. Oneida, Benewah, Koote- nai, and Boundary. Benewah, Boundary, and Kootenai. Jefferson and 3 Lane, Yamhill, Lincoln, and Tillamook. Marion Harney do Lincoln Yamhill Lincoln Benton Deschutes, Klamath, and Crook. Cowlitz Pend Oreille and Stevens Snohomish. Pend Oreille. Stevens Project Southeastern Idaho, agricul- tural demonstration. Port Hall Indian Reservation. Malad Valley. Northern Idaho. Central Oregon, grazing. Western Oregon, scattered settlers relocation. Silver Creek, recreational. Burns Colony, Indian. Lake Malheur migratory, waterfowl refuge. Yaquina Bay. Yamhill farms. Salmon River. Willamette Valley. Central Oregon farms. Longview homesteads. Northeast Washington, tered settlers. Snohomish farms. Locke. Colville Valley. scat- 70 RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM REGION 12 Project no. *LD and LA-CO 4. RR-CO 11. RR-CO 12, RR-CO 16. *LD and LA-KA 1... RR-KA 6 *LD and LA-NM 2.„_ *LD and LA-NM 3-„_ *LD and LA-NM 4— _ *LD and LA-NM 5— . LI-NM 6 LI-NM 7 LI-NM 8 LI-NM 9... - LI-NM 10 LI-NM 11 — . LI-NM 12- _ LI-NM 13 *LD and LP-NM 14_-. RF-NM 16- - LI-NM 18--- - RR-NM 19. RR-NM 21. RR-NM 24. RR-NM 25. RR-NM 26. LB-TX9.- RR-TX 15. City COLORADO Rocky Ford— . KANSAS Elkhart None— NEW MEXICO Taos Las Cruces- Hope Mills Not known. do .do- .do. .do. do- do do Alamogordo— . Not known.-. North Gallup. Hobbs Not known. do do Albuquerque. TEXAS Muleshoe Plain view County Otero and Las Animas. Huerfano. Pueblo.. - do.— Morton and Stevens. Scott Taos, Rio Arriba Dona Ana and Luna Eddy Harding, Mora, Colfax__- Sandoval Sandoval and Bernalillo-. Valencia Sandoval Sante Fe and Sandoval- Valencia Rio Arriba and Santa Fe_ McKinley and Valencia- Otero and Dona Ana Valencia McKinley Lea, Eddy, Chaves DeBaca, Sandoval, etc.. Sante Fe, Rio Arriba Rio Arriba and 4 Bernalillo Bailey. Hale-- Project Southern Otero land readjust- ment. Walsenburg. Broadacres. Excelsior. Southwest Kansas adjustment. Scott farms. land use Taos County land agricultural. Crater land use adjustment. Hope irrigation adjustment. Mills land use adjustment. Zia and Santa Ana Indian. Laguna Indian. Acoma Indian. Jemez Indian Cochiti, San Domingo, San Felipe Indian. Isleta Indian. Tewa Basin Indian. Zuni Reservation Indian. White Sands recreational. Bosque farms. Gallup-Two Wells Indian re- habilitation. Lea farms. Mills Northern. Tewa. Rio Grande. Albuquerque homesteads. Muleshoe migratory waterfowl refuge. Plain view. O RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION PROJECTS REGION 12 o o LEGEND ACTIVE PROJECTS PROJECTS BEINO DEVELOPED ^ PROJECTS COMPLETED SUBURBAN RESETTLEMENT TYPE SR RESETTLEMENT SH FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RURAL RESETTLEMENT TYPE RR RESETTLEMENT RH FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS RF FORMER F.E R A. RL COOPERATIVE a COMMUNITY SERVICE Rl INDIAN LAND ACQUISITION TYPE LA AGRICULTURAL LB MIGRATORY WATERFOWL (BIOL. 8UR.) LI INDIAN LP PARKS (RECREATIONAL) LO OTHER TYPE OTHER PROJECTS FS FOREST SERVICE IH INDIAN (FORMER SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS) * RESETTLEMENT PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION * AND UNO ACQUISITION PROJECTS ON WHICH LAND OEVELOpSeMT [LO] WORK IS IN PROGRESS GRAPH RA-AD 21 (REVISION 2) 5-9-36 PREPARED BY PftOCEOURC DIVISION 67891—36 (Pace p. 70)