35 minute read
The Promontory-Curlew Land Company: Promoting Dry Farming in Utah
This map of the Utah-Idaho dry-farming project appeared ca. 1913 in a brochure, "Opportunities in Box Elder County, "published by the Promontory-Curlew Land Company. It emphasizes the new town of Howell, existing rail lines, and projected routes, including the Utah-Idaho and the Salt Lake & Idaho railroads listed as under construction. Mileages shown are distancesfrom Salt Lake City. USHS collections.
The Promontory-Curlew Land Company: Promoting Dry Farming in Utah
BY CRAIG L TORBENSON
IN 1959 THE PROMONTORY-CURLEW LAND COMPANY of Logan, Utah, dissolved all assets and ceased operation. Over the previous fifty years the company had sold land in Box Elder County, Utah, and Oneida and Cassia counties in southern Idaho. By examining the history of this company and its promotion of dry farming in order to sell land, one can come to a better understanding of the environmental and economic difficulties of using marginal lands for agriculture.
The history of this company is divided into four phases. Although the phases overlap, each is distinct in terms of company activities and objectives The first phase involved the acquisition of land in 1909 The second spanned the years 1909-19, during which the company focused on selling land for dry farming. In the third phase, 1919-43, the focus shifted away from dry farming as the company tried to sell land for whatever use would make a profit. The fourth phase, 1922-59, was characterized by the sale of oil, gas, and mineral rights. The company's experience in selling acreage for different land uses is a microcosm of what occurred in the arid regions of the West
The Promontory-Curlew Land Company originated in the early twentieth-century promotion of dry farming in the western states. This agricultural practice relied on conserving soil moisture to cultivate land in areas that received less than twenty inches of annual rainfall.1 Dry farming, therefore, seemed to make agriculture practical without irrigation in the arid West. Older agricultural practices, developed in the less arid eastern states, did not work well in the West As a result, numerous dry-farming techniques were developed, including deep plowing, summer fallowing, controlling weeds to conserve moisture, keeping the top soil loose for better retention of moisture, and using less seed.2 Dry farming received a major boost through scientific research conducted byJohn A. Widtsoe at the Utah State Agricultural College in Logan during the early 1900s Through experiments Widtsoe established that soils could store up to two years' worth of moisture. In some areas not suitable for irrigation, therefore, dry farming might be both appropriate and successful.3
Residents of Utah enthusiastically embraced dry farming. Many in the northern counties, especially Cache, had practiced early forms of dry farming by the 1870s. Beginning in the 1890s, the development of dry-land farming in Utah and southern Idaho increased as farmers moved into drier areas and used or further refined these farming techniques.4 By 1907 nearly 94,000 acres in Utah were used to farm dry-land wheat.5 By 1929 this figure had more than tripled to 290,000 acres. This acreage represented only land that was currently being dry farmed and did not include land left fallow, an estimated 176,000 acres. 6 This expansion of dry farming in Utah mirrored regional trends in the western states
Another factor in the spread of agriculture onto marginal lands was the passage of the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909. The act satisfied cattle ranchers by allowing them to homestead 320 acres of land instead of the normal 160 acres Ranchers were not the only ones to take advantage of the act, however. Over the next decade some 5,000 farmers in Utah applied for patents on dry-farm land.7
A number of land, water, livestock, and agricultural companies based on speculative business ventures organized in response to this agrarian land boom. By 1909 ten dry-land farm companies were operating in the state. While some companies sold land to farmers for dry farming, others went into dry farming as a business venture, sometimes using as many as twenty or more hired men to work the farm. Thus, in this as in other marginal land zones of the West, dry-farming promotion played a significant part in the economic development and expansion of agriculture.8
With available land and a promising technique for farming it successfully, a variety of promoters and speculators recognized the potential to make money. 9 One of the more prominent land promoters was Joseph Howell. A seven-term congressman from Utah (1902 to 1916), he was also a director of both the National City and the Farmers' & Stockgrowers' banks in Salt Lake City Well known as a Utah businessman and committed to the development of agriculture in Utah, he recognized the opportunity for a business venture with dry farming as the promotional instrument.
Howell knew of a vast tract of land for sale in Box Elder County and Cassia and Oneida counties in Idaho Whether he was looking for potential land purchases or whether someone brought this land to his attention is not clear. Nevertheless, he leaped at the chance to purchase it and enlisted and organized a group of friends and business associates, with David Eccles, a multimillionaire businessman from Ogden, serving as major financier. Eccles was no stranger to dry farming; in 1904 he had organized the Blue Creek Land and Livestock Company and then in 1907 shifted the emphasis of that company's activities from liveI J stock to dry-land farming.10 The congressman recruited two other important individuals: H. E. Hatch, president of the Thatcher Brothers' Bank in Logan, and Herschel Bullen, Jr., a state senator and close political associate of Howell.11
This group purchased land that included 614 sections in the Blue Springs (also called Blue Creek), Hansel, and Curlew valleys, in the surrounding mountains, and on Promontory Peninsula These lands had originally been part of the "checkerboard" land granted to the Central Pacific Railroad in 1862 and 1864. Charles Crocker, one of the owners of the Central Pacific, purchased the lands from the railroad in 1870 and formed a large livestock company to raise horses and cattle. For nearly forty years he and his heirs used the land extensively for ranching.12
By the early 1900s the Crocker family holdings totaled nearly 400,000 acres in Utah and Idaho. Split into two ranches (the Promontory and the Curlew) for ease of management, the large outfits faced declining profits during the 1890s. Since the ranches' trustees were unwilling to sell piecemeal, this limited the number of potential buyers.13
On July 12, 1909, Howell met with representatives from the Promontory and Curlew Ranch companies in Washington, D.C., to purchase the land. The total price was $510,000, or about $1.40 per acre. Along with the land, the sale included water rights, an essential component for any irrigated agriculture in the West Howell also acquired numerous farming implements located on the ranches. For an additional $10,000 he bought nearly 3,000 head of cattle, over 200 horses, and almost 200 pigs.14
On August 14, 1909, the Promontory-Curlew Land Company was organized with David Eccles as president, Howell as vice-president, H E. Hatch as treasurer, Herschel Bullen, Jr., as secretary, and Seth A. Langton as manager. The company planned to "own, use, control, operate, develop, buy, sell all kinds of lands and real estate, canals, reservoirs, artesian, flowing or other wells, and to mortgage or lease the same . . . and to conduct and carry on the business of farming, ranching, and stock-raising."15
Eccles, Howell, and Hatch each received one-fourth of the company stock The remaining stock was offered to the public at $100 per share with 1,200 shares available.16 The company chose Logan, Utah, as its base of operation. The new company incorporated the ranches' former names in its new legal title, both for reasons of continuity and because the terms referred to prominent geographical features of the area—the Promontory Mountains and the Curlew Valley. With past and present thus linked, the new owners could hope to attract buyers to their dry-farm bonanza tracts.
After incorporating, the new owners faced several items of business to complete before the land could be sold. The land had to be surveyed and appraised, a town site selected, and improvements begun in order to attract buyers. An appraisal committee composed of Seth Langton and Oleen N. Stohl (directors of Promontory Curlew), Newell Bullen (brother of Herschel), and Thomas Davis (former manager for the Promontory and Curlew Ranch companies) was organized to assess the company's land assets.17 By January 1910 the committee had completed nearly two-thirds of the appraisals and classified the land according to best potential use. The appraised prices reflected the tracts' agricultural potential; land suitable only for dry farming was valued around $10 per acre, irrigated lands between $35 and $65 per acre, and grazing lands between 50 cents and $2.50 per acre. The appraised land value totaled over $1.68 million.18
The company held clear title to nearly 370,000 acres. Based on the appraised values, the company had roughly 3,000 acres of irrigated land, 35,000 acres of dry-farm land, 154,000 acres of grazing land, and 178,000 acres of what can be termed transitional land—land appraised between $2.50 and $10 per acre. 19
The company also selected a town site and prepared it for settlement. Since most of the potential land purchasers were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the board sought church involvement in the selection of the town site. The board deputized Herschel Bullen to meet withJoseph F. Smith to solicit the LDS church president's opinion in locating the town. The board apparently hoped that Smith would encourage church members living along the Wasatch Front and in Cache Valley to move to the town site and build homes there. Smith expressed interest in helping to select a site, but he was unable to make a personal visit and appointed one of the board's directors to represent the church.20
The town site was located in the Blue Springs Valley near the Big House, a structure originally built by Charles Crocker near Promontory Station. The Big House, described as a "millionaire's palace and sportsman's lodge," had been moved in 1908 to a location along the Blue Creek. In 1910 John Baxter, owner of a mercantile store in Cache Valley, was recruited by Howell to move out to the town site and sell land Baxter purchased the Big House and operated it as a combined post office and store. He served prospective land buyers as their host and real estate agent.21
The new town, named Howell in honor of Joseph Howell, comprised 309 lots. To the south of town, 2,400 acres were divided into 20acre plots for irrigation. Individuals who purchased company land for dry farming enjoyed first priority on purchasing irrigable lands. Realizing that available water might serve as a magnet for buyers, the company willingly appropriated time and money to improve and construct the infrastructure for both irrigation and culinary water. The town site included a dam built by the Promontory and Curlew Ranch companies on the Blue Springs Creek. While it might have been sufficient for watering stock, the new owners invested in much-needed improvements, including raising the dam's height, providing a larger spillway, and installing new cement headgates. Two canals were constructed for better distribution of irrigation water. For culinary purposes, the company built a cement reservoir with a capacity of 100,000 gallons. The reservoir's source, a nearby fresh spring, was connected to it by an efficient pipe-feed system. To provide additional water, the company dug wells within the town site.22 The directors' attempts to ensure a steady supply of water became a prominent and recurrent theme in the early history of the company.
Despite these efforts, Promontory-Curlew failed to entice many people to build in Howell Next, in an attempt to make the town site more appealing, the directors devised a cooperative plan for home construction. Under its terms, prospective settlers paid between onethird and one-half the cost of a town cottage while the company financed the remainder. The settler would then repay the company on an easy installment plan. The idea failed, however; people simply were not attracted to the town site. With few exceptions, those interested in purchasing Promontory-Curlew land were farmers who preferred to live close to their crop fields rather than in town.23 Howell never attained the population envisioned by the company's board of directors, with only thirty-four families living in the town in 1949.24
The promotion of the town represented only part of the company's plans; its main business was the sale of farm land The company held its first sale in October 1909. With the completion of the land appraisal in Blue Springs Valley, 40,000 acres were available for sale. The terms of sale stipulated a 20 percent cash down payment with the balance due in ten annual payments at 7 percent interest. The board, believing that the appraisals were low, agreed that no land would be sold under its appraised value. At this first sale, 28,757 acres were sold using sealed bids. Three more land sales, again using sealed bids, were held over the next six weeks, disposing of an additional 52,146 acres Thus, within a month and a half, the company sold 80,903 acres, or over one-fifth of the original land purchase All had sold at or above the appraised value. Sales continued into 1910, with the company using newspapers as well as word of mouth to advertise their lands. As a result, over 53,000 additional acres were sold.25
These were the Promontory-Curlew company's golden years (1909-10) for selling dry-farm parcels. Since the most promising lands had been those first sold, interest in the area soon waned, and land sales plummeted. The decline was not surprising. With average annual precipitation running about 12.6 inches, much of the company's land was simply too dry to support even the dry-farming techniques developed for marginal lands. That, coupled with the area's severe winters, made life and farming, already precarious, downright insufferable Even the company's timing worked against it; in terms of climate 1909 and 1910 were particularly harsh. The extremely severe winter of 1909 was followed by the unusually dry summer of 1910. As a consequence, land sales dropped precipitously. Only 719 acres sold in 1911 and 3,313 acres in 1912.26
By 1913 significant portions of the Blue Springs and Hansel valleys were being dry farmed; the Curlew Valley, however, remained untouched. The company attempted to attract settlers there by digging a deep well that cost $1,500. To further demonstrate the potential of the land, the company fenced in the half-section around the well and planted all 320 acres in wheat and rye. In its first year, this demonstration plot produced a fair yield, which proved to be a bonanza for local gophers and ground squirrels Despite this success, few settlers were impressed enough to move to the Curlew tracts.27
The Promontory-Curlew Land Company was not alone in having difficulties promoting the Curlew Valley. The Utah-Idaho Land and Water Company, another business enterprise operating in the Curlew Valley, constructed a dam in 1914 to provide irrigation for farming The dam initially filled its reservoir, but the project fell short of hopes. The reservoir proved to be leaky; this, coupled with irrigation use, left it dry after only two months. The same problem occurred the following year. The difficulties of farming in the drier Curlew Valley hampered both companies' attempts to attract farmers. 2 8 While both companies saw economic potential for this valley, the farmers themselves could see that the physical environment was not conducive to agriculture and avoided the area
By 1917 Promontory-Curlew had recorded dismal land sales for six consecutive years. During that time the company tried a more aggressive approach to attract buyers by publishing a variety of promotional brochures The most elaborate of these presented the best propaganda the company could muster for itself as well as its properties. It was richly illustrated with portraits of the board of directors, scenes from successful dry farms, pictures of buildings in Howell, and a map showing the lands already sold and those still available for sale. The company had previously canvassed farmers who had already purchased land, and the brochure included many of their comments such as "land is cheap and good," "crops grow well and do not burn up," "good wheat land," and "a good climate." These statements provided potential purchasers with testimony of the land's viability for farming, presenting the area's physical geography and climate in a positive context.29
While emphasizing the positive, the promotional brochure did not present the Promontory-Curlew development as a no-risk proposition. Hard work and adherence to dry farming techniques were needed for success The brochure cautioned: "If you are not experienced—if you are a failure—if you haven't enough money to start on—DON'T START—because Promontory Curlew is not for you." If this did not frighten away potential customers, the brochure continued by listing all the equipment a farmer needed: "four or five horses; a farm wagon; a set of farm harnesses; three single sets of harness for plows, etc.; a set of railroad rails for grubbing; a gang plow; a harrow; a drill; a header box and at least a third interest in a 12-foot header."30
Company literature provided a detailed plan of action for the first few years of farming. This scheme emphasized planting wheat, the area's most successful crop, as well as oats, barley, rye, and hay. In addition, the plan stressed the importance of sinking a well. The capital investment required for dry farming was quite high, but the company obviously wanted farmers who had enough money to begin and who could farm successfully in order to make their yearly payments. In this regard, the company had met with indifferent success in the first few years of sales; directors' minutes after 1910 consistently recorded farmers who asked for a reduction in their payments, a decrease in the interest charged, or, when really desperate, a complete release from their contracts. Consequently, the company focused on attracting a
hard-working, energetic farmer, the sort likely to remit his yearly payments on time.31
Ibid.; "Minutes," 1910; October 8, 1911; November 20, 1915; October 2, 1918.
Although subsequent land sales did not live up to the bonanza promise of the initial offering, the company still managed to dispose of over half of its holdings within its first decade. Total sales for Promontory-Curlew had reached more than $1 million by 1918, but over 155,000 acres remained unsold and the directors still hoped to realize profits from these.32 The next year, therefore, they looked for new ways to attract buyers to the remaining tracts These new ventures marked the company's entry into a third phase of developing operations that would last until 1943
The first indication of the advent of this new era was the hiring of an outside agent to push the property. G. M. Henderson from Kansas City, Missouri, was selected as the company's new sales representative. Henderson's contributions to the sales effort consisted of three strategies to sell or trade away the slow-selling land. The first involved recruiting farmers from the Midwest. Henderson had a group of farmers from Indiana willing to pay cash, but they demanded a warranty deed that reserved all mineral rights for the purchasers The board of directors vetoed this proposal.33
A second, more elaborate, scheme involved Henderson putting together a deal for a syndicate that included the purchase of a coal company, the Central Iowa Fuel Company. The deal called for Promontory-Curlew to sell its remaining acreage and to physically part with the land titles before being paid. Although the directors balked at the proposal, it must have held significant attractions, since the board sent Herschel Bullen to Iowa to check on the details Ultimately, the board voted down this proposal too.
Henderson's final strategy consisted of Henderson himself purchasing the land, then selling smaller parcels on a deferred-payment basis Only those prospects financially capable of making the payments would be allowed to participate. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the board approved this strategy, but the scheme fell through and the expected sales from this proposal never materialized.34 With the failure of the Henderson schemes and few other sales probable, the company offered all its holdings for a price of $350,000 in 1921. No one made an offer.35
By now the directors could see the futility of promoting their remaining lands for dry farming. These disappointments did not stop the Promontory-Curlew's directors from seeking some way to turn a profit on their remaining desert lands. In 1923 the company tried something new by purchasing an apartment complex in Kansas City, Missouri L Boyd Hatch, son of company president H E Hatch, supervised the deal. The board examined several apartment buildings before purchasing Harrison Court, a new building with 26 units valued at $115,000. Part of the trade for the building included 30,000 acres of land. The investment initially did well. With the advent of the Great Depression in late 1929, however, rental income dropped. The company accordingly suffered losses every year until they sold out in 1942.36
The brief profitability of the Kansas City investment aside, the company's post-World War I land deals followed a depressive pattern
All of its postwar land sales resulted in paper losses based upon the difference between the inflated appraisal price and the generally much lower selling price. The dynamics of this relationship are revealed in the 1924 sale of a large parcel of Promontory-Curlew land. A rival land and livestock company purchased nearly 31,000 acres for a negotiated price of $15,500, equivalent to 50 cents an acre. The appraisal price of this land totaled over $110,000; the sacrifice of the $94,500 difference may reveal something of the desperation felt by the PromontoryCurlew's directors.37
The directors were sometimes less willing to cut their losses In 1926 Luther Foss, a millionaire businessman from Los Angeles, located a company that offered to purchase Promontory-Curlew's remaining 100,000 acres for $35,000, or about 35 cents an acre. The appraised value of this land was $400,000. The board rejected the offer but in retrospect probably wished they had accepted. Foss made no counter-offer, and in the next year Promontory-Curlew dropped the price first to $35,000 and then to $25,000; there were no takers.38 This episode illustrates the dangers of asking a grossly inflated appraisal price for marginal land. The directors had ample opportunity to savor this lesson, as they would be unable to sell any of their remnant acres at the appraised value.
The 1920s and 30s were difficult decades for the Promontory-Curlew Land Company and for Utah agriculture in general as adverse environmental, sociocultural, and economic factors afflicted farmers throughout the state Those operating dry farms were especially hard hit.39 The minutes of the board meetings reflect a lethargy in tone and activity. There were few land sales, and, overall, the company cut back most of its operations The situation did not improve in the 1940s, although the company was able to dispose of its remaining surface rights, nearly 57,000 acres, in 1943 to the Bar B Company for $15,000 while retaining most of the subsurface rights.40
The retention of mineral rights would provide a key to the dynamics of the Promontory-Curlew's fourth phase of operations. This phase in fact overlapped the third one, as initial inquiries concerning oil were made prior to 1920. At that time the company had opted not to sell leases without first having the property professionally evaluated. Within a few years, however, the company would seek buyers and lessors on the strength of hydrocarbon potential. From 1922 until 1959 the company would pin its hopes on the disposal of land and/or its subsurface rights for oil, gas, or mineral exploration.41 In an ironic twist, the Promontory-Curlew's hard luck followed it into this fourth phase of endeavor Although it was able to sell or lease land for this purpose, all attempts to discover any mineral resources proved unsuccessful.
Several abortive attempts to recover resources were made during the 1920s, but the first serious effort began in 1930 when Californian Luther Foss returned to purchase a tract of nearly 77,000 acres, complete with mineral rights, on which to search for oil. Foss made this investment based on a report by geologist S Goring Vidler, who said: "During my twenty odd years in the profession as a geologist and having had seven fields already to my credit, I wish to say that from the geological and physical evidences here, this should be one of the greatest potential fields that has yet been discovered on the North American continent."42 Vidler's optimistic evaluation was based on the presence of naturally occurring asphalt at the surface throughout the region. The search for oil nevertheless proved fruitless, and in 1937 the contract was canceled Between 1948 and 1956 the Utah Southern Oil Company leased the Promontory-Curlew's remaining under-
ground rights and drilled four test wells Although one well reached the depth of 12,500 feet, the test results showed little promise. Faced with such meager prospects, Promontory-Curlew sold their remaining underground rights in August 1959 for 50 cents an acre. With that final sale, the company dissolved as a corporation in an act foreordained nearly two decades before At a meeting on February 3, 1940, the directors had voted to liquidate remaining assets. With the terminal disposal of assets, the company's half-century of life came to an end.43
The modus operandi of the Promontory-Curlew Land Company was the use of dry farming as a promotional instrument to sell its land. All companies or speculators who tried to sell marginal land in the arid West faced problems, and Promontory-Curlew was no exception. To attract settlers to an area, land companies would often lay out a town site and construct a dam and canals. These investments succeeded in initially attracting settlers.44 The active interest of the directors of Promontory-Curlew is clearly visible in the specific projects they developed, such as laying out a town site, constructing a dam and canals, proposing housing construction, drilling wells, and planting fields. Almost every transaction between Promontory-Curlew and the settler was a ten-year venture. The success of the company depended on farmers who could earn enough to make their yearly payments.
Drilling for oil on Promontory-Curlew lands. Bullen Collection, Merrill Library, Utah State University. Thus, the goals of the directors and the individual farmers were tied together; neither could make money without a successful harvest.
A major and persistent problem in sparsely populated dry-farming areas was the lack of infrastructure. The absence of roads as well as social institutions such as schools and public services tended to deter potential farmers from relocating to the arid countryside. 4 5 For example, children who attended elementary schools often had to travel several miles, while students in high school often had to move to the bigger cities during the academic year. The lands sold by Promontory-Curlew, like many other dry farming promotions, were located at some distance from settled areas Therefore, the company's attempt to establish a town at Howell was an effort to create a cluster of population within which social institutions would be more readily available to the farmers in the area. 46
The company's attempts to attract Latter-day Saint settlers may also have been meant to mitigate the isolation; the Mormon church offered opportunities for fellowship and socialization through church- related activities.47 While the provision of a social net was not Promontory-Curlew's primary concern, their efforts in this vein suggest that the directors comprehended the discouraging nature of the usual dry-farm isolation.
Another obstacle faced by dry farmers was the distance goods had to be transported to market.48 Farmers living in the Blue Springs, Hansel, and Curlew valleys faced journeys of as much as twenty-five miles in order to transport crops to the nearest railhead. A rail line ran roughly through the center of company lands, yet transporting goods to rail stations was still a hardship for many farmers The board of directors recognized this problem. While no direct evidence exists to suggest the directors approached the owners of the Southern Pacific Railroad about installing a line through company lands, the railroad was considering construction of such a line through either the Blue Springs or Curlew Valley as early as 1911. In keeping with the efforts made by Promontory-Curlew to improve company lands, it would seem likely that the directors made such an effort. The completion of a rail connection would have been economically beneficial to farmers and improved the company's prospects of selling more land. After examining the feasibility of running a line through either of these valleys, Southern Pacific opted not to construct a line in 1912.49
Climatic variables also exacerbated the problems in areas lacking infrastructure and lying far from market or transportation centers.50 The Promontory-Curlew's declining success in promoting dry-farm land sales almost certainly had much to do with the physical environment of the property. Prospective buyers could easily recognize the main features of the area's harsh and unpredictable environment: hot, dry summers, hailstorms, lightning strikes, early frosts, late springs, chilly winds, severe winters with snowstorms, and drought. The company's portrayal of the area as ideal for dry farming was disingenuous at best, verging on deceptive. Concerning precipitation, the most important variable of dry farming, the company stated:
Under proper climatic conditions dry farming could be successful, as shown through scientific research and the experiences of many successful practitioners It was a tricky livelihood, however; and the success of the technique varied according to such factors as the amount, distribution, and timing of precipitation, temperature, slope of the land, soil character, and wind. While one farmer could plant wheat and have a great harvest, a few miles away another farmer would have a dismal yield. Both farms might receive the same amount of precipitation, yet the other physical factors could vary, to the fortune of one and the bankruptcy of the other.52 The company obviously stretched the potential of the region beyond the boundaries of reality. Whether intentional or not, this "improvement" made sense in light of the company's business: to promote the sale of land for this agricultural practice.
The region's wildlife posed yet another obstacle for would-be dry agrarians. Ground squirrels, gophers, and rabbits feasted on the wheat and in some areas destroyed as much as 60 percent of the crop; the animals' enthusiastic consumption of the company's demonstration crop in 1913 mirrored the experiences of surrounding landholders Perhaps a farmer might survive one of these hazards. More often than not the area and those farming within it would be subjected to drought, floods, varmints, and possibly other obstacles to successful harvests, all within a single year. 53
The physical environment of the dry farms not only handicapped potential yields, but it also worked hardships on those attempting to farm. In addition to the requirements of crops or gardens, farmers also needed water for livestock and for their own consumption. Providing culinary water was a necessity for attracting settlers to any dry-farm area. To meet this challenge, Promontory-Curlew spent significant money and time improving the infrastructure for water at the Howell town site. The Curlew Valley well, primarily a promotional symbol, likewise spoke to this need. It was also, unfortunately, symbolic not only of the availability of water but also of the difficulty of recovering it; in order to reach water the well was drilled to a depth of 300 feet. This depth was not atypical for the district. As a result, area wells represented some of the deepest and most costly in Utah.54
A final problem for dry farmers involved the fluctuating price of wheat. Farmers in northern Utah suffered, as did their counterparts in other areas of the country, when supply exceeded demand. Farmers enjoyed stable prices in the years prior to World War I and benefitted from the wartime boom, but postwar overproduction glutted national markets and prices sank. The farmer became sorely pressed to make ends meet. This was especially the case on marginal lands where, for example, in 1917 potential crop yields of 30 to 40 bushels per acre had declined to 5 to 10 bushels.55
Like Promontory-Curlew, most dry farming promotional companies and their customers suffered from such trends What made the Promontory-Curlew Land Company unique was the sheer size of its land holdings. While other companies operated with tens of thousands of acres, Promontory-Curlew operated with hundreds of thousands. This was reflected in the size of the farms located in the Blue Springs and Hansel valleys The average size of a farm (1936) in the Hansel Valley was 983 acres, with 436 acres used for dry farming; in the Blue Springs Valley the average size was 633 acres with 410 used for dry cultivation. Farms located in other dry-land areas of Utah were, on average, one-third to one-quarter the size of the Hansel and Blue Springs farms The large size of the Promontory-Curlew farms may have resulted from the large scale of the original land acquisition, use of the farms specifically for dry farming, the Enlarged Homestead Act, and the farms' distance from any water sources for use in irrigation.56
Or, perhaps, the large size of tracts sold suggests the intent of the sellers The objective of Promontory-Curlew was, after all, to sell land In this sense, it was a successful speculative business venture for Howell, Eccles, Bullen, and others who invested in the company. By 1918 the directors had recouped their investment and made an additional $500,000. On the other hand, selling land for dry farming was less successful; agricultural performance never equaled what the company had projected, perhaps because of the over-optimistic evaluation of the land itself. Although nearly 56 percent of the company's land was marketed as suitable for dry farming, it is calculated that at least 84 percent of this 56 percent was in fact questionable.57 Throughout the West and Great Plains, numerous areas thrived using dry-land farming. For nearly every success story, however, there was a story of failure.58 The same is true with the farmers who purchased Promontory-Curlew lands. While the landscape of the area is dotted with abandoned farms representing the dreams and hopes of past farmers, there are also numerous farms that are successful in the region today.
The processes of success or failure in dry farming affected land companies throughout the West Promontory-Curlew was one company that had early success in selling land for dry farming. However, the appraised value of their remaining lands totaled nearly $700,000. Although the company can be deemed a successful business venture on the basis of the money generated, its original expectations, given the land appraisals, were not met. Thus, the paradox of Promontory-Curlew: it was a successful money-generating business venture that was only partially successful in selling land by promoting dry farming. However, this is what the company is remembered for. Its legacy as a promoter of dry farming in order to sell land contributes to the agricultural and business history of Utah.
NOTES
Dr Torbenson is professor of history at Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas
1 Joh n Edwin Lamborn, "A History of the Development of Dry-Farming in Utah and Southern Idaho" (master's thesis, Utah State University, 1978), p 8.
2 Thomas Shaw, Dry-land Farming (St Paul: Pioneer Company, 1911), pp 8-10, 17-19, 121-130, 218-223.
3 Alan K Parrish, "The Utah Experiment Station in the Widtsoe Years," Utah Historical Quarterly 63 (1995): 60.
4 Charles S Peterson, "The 'Americanization' of Utah's Agriculture," Utah Historical Quarterly 42 (1974): 112-15.
5 Deseret Farmer, February 23, 1907.
6 U.S Department of Agriculture, Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930, Utah Statistics by Counties, First Series (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1931), p 6; Joh n F Deeds and Depue Falck, Land ClassificationReportfor Utah, Geological Survey, U.S Department of Agriculture (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1932), p 15.
7 Brian Q Cannon, "Struggle against Great Odds: Challenges in Utah's Marginal Agricultural Areas, 1925-39," Utah Historical Quarterly 54 (1986): 312.
8 Utah, Secretary of State, Annual Report, 1911, pp 48-73.
9 This often led to abuses as illustrated by the experience of Ludwig A Culmsee in Carlton Culmsee, "Last Free Land Rush," Utah Historical Quarterly 49 (1981): 30-31; and in William D Woelz, "Metropolis: Death of a Dream," Northeastern Nevada Historical SocietyQuarterly (Spring 1973): 3-15.
10 For more information about the life of David Eccles see Leonar d J Arrington, David Eccles: Pioneer Western Industrialist (Logan: Utah State University, 1975).
11 Herschel Bullen was elected to the Utah State Senate in 1906 He also served as secretary and/o r treasurer for the entire life of the Promontory-Curlew Land Company Bullen Papers MSS 178, Special Collections and Archives, Merrill Library, Utah State University, Logan.
12 Lydia Walker Forsgren, ed., History of Box Elder County ([Brigham City]: Box Elder County Daughters of Utah Pioneers, 1937), pp. 43-44.
13 "A Winning Combination on the Farms of Promontory-Curlew," brochur e published by the Promontory-Curlew Land Company, 1917 Bullen Papers, Box 3.
14 Promontory-Curlew Land Company, "Minutes of the Board of Directors," August 16 and September 10, 1909, Bullen Papers, box 3 (hereinafter cited as "Minutes").
15 "Incorporation Papers of the Promontory-Curlew Land Company," Bullen Papers, box 4.
16 "Minutes," August 16, 1909; Richard Stoddard, "A Master's Thesis," Joseph Howell Collection MSS 1463, Special Collections and Manuscripts, Harold B Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo.
17 "Minutes," September 10, 1909.
18 Ibid., January 13, 1910.
19 Herschel Bullen, "History of the Promontory-Curlew Land Company, 1964," Bullen Papers, box 4; appraisal values from "Company Minutes and Appraisal Notebook." Of this appraisal, the value of nearly 9,000 acres, indicated on the map by an asterisk, is unknown Sections with a star represent land appraised for both irrigation and dry-farming purposes but predominately irrigation.
20 "Minutes," September 10, 1909; February 20, 1911.
21 Ibid., October 1, 1909; H Leon Kotter, Howell Valley History 1909-1975 (n.p., n.d.), p 4.
22 "Minutes," October 1, 1909.
23 Bullen, "History of Promontory-Curlew Land Company"; "Minutes," September 19, 1910; July 29-August 19, 1912.
24 Kotter, Howell Valley History, p.11.
25 "Minutes," October 1, October 20, November 4, November 24, December 9, 1909; 1910.
26 Ibid., 1911 and 1912.
27 Bullen, "History of Promontory-Curlew Land Company.".
28 "Minutes," July 8, 1915.
29 "Winning Combination" brochure.
30 Ibid.
32 Bullen, "History of Promontory-Curlew Land Company."
33 "Minutes," August 4, 1919.
34 Ibid., May 18-October 11, 1920.
35 Ibid., March 14, 1921.
36 Ibid., September 21, October 14, 1923; October 14, 1924; May 19, 1942; Bullen, "History of Promontory-Curlew Land Company."
37 "Minutes," October 14, 1924.
38 Ibid., March 30, 1926; October 5, 1927.
39 Cannon, "Struggle against Great Odds," pp 308-14.
40 "Minutes," October 7, 1943.
41 Ibid., May 27, 1918.
42 Ibid., February 14, 1930-December 10, 1936; Bullen, "History of Promontory-Curlew Land Company."
43 "Oil and Gas Lease" D, Bullen Papers, box 7; "Minutes," August 11, 1959.
44 Marshall E Bowen, Utah People in the Nevada Desert (Logan: Utah State University Press, 1994).
45 Mary Wilma M Hargreaves, Dry Farming in the Northern Great Plains: 1900-1925 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957), pp 485-88.
46 Another example was the establishment of the town of Metropolis in northeastern Nevada by the Pacific Reclamation Company That company focused on attracting merchants to the town site as well as homesteaders to the area See Bowen, Utah People in the Nevada Desert. Promontory-Curlew's town site of Howell was designed for farmers who would be irrigating and/o r dry farming in the area There is no indication that any attempt was made to attract businesses to Howell.
47 The Pacific Reclamation Company also focused on attracting Mormon settlers to their town and lands because they were "industrious, sober, and more likely than others to pay their installments." Bowen, Utah People in the Nevada Desert, pp 14-15.
48 Hargreaves, Dry Farming in the Northern Great Plains, pp 491-92.
49 "Minutes," 1911, 1912; Jun e 14-August 19, 1912.
50 Hargreaves, Dry Farming in the Northern Great Plains, pp 498-502.
51 "A Winning Combination," brochure.
52 Cannon, "Struggle against Great Odds," pp 312-13.
53 "Minutes," October 4, 1916, October 2, 1918.
54 Norah E Zink, Dry Farming Adjustments in Utah (Chicago: University of Chicago Libraries, 1937), p 50.
55 "Minutes," October 3, 1917.
56 Zink, Dry Farming Adjustments in Utah, pp 52-53.
57 The 56 percent is derived from the original land appraisal and includes all lands (not irrigated) appraised over $2.50 per acre This dollar value was the upper limit for grazing land While the company appraised dry-farming land at around $10.00 dollars per acre, 84 percent of the land was appraised between $2.50 and $9.00 The company hoped to sell these lands for dry farming, but the transitional nature of this large acreage prevented them from reaching that goal.
58 Marshall Bowen, "Bitter Times: The Summers of 1915 and 1916 on Northeast Nevada's Dry Farms," Northeastern Nevada Historical Quarterly 93 (1993): 3-25; Barbara Allen, Homesteading the High Desert (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1987).
