,.,'.‘,,,',;,~1,1,'1r.,‘r 11.17.11,, - 1,1 ,,,:,'.. 3,1“;“58‘ ,1,‘ 333531“‘3‘1’~"““!“‘L‘33I ‘,,,,. “mt-1,3" 1": 3331,53. “‘62.” $353,315 3:; “ €531 1‘1“'“"13 ‘1,1 1,1‘ '1 ,3..’I.1‘ "11‘531 .1 1w ’1‘1“11‘1“1‘," 1\;.’11111' 1,11‘1‘1'.“'.’,‘,'1.1111'”""‘“1.1:'. i,‘ _,, ’11-L\.,1,1,1,',,,,,,,',,,,,1.,1,1,11,1‘111’1A”,l,3l‘1 ”1““1!‘ v ‘ 1:,3 52,111, 1,111,, N. 51,1},1,,',‘?l,". "'3 11,, 3'.1,w 1‘“‘ , L“‘1,’1'1’“ 3} '1, 3,531,1“ -, ”,‘111611‘33333‘, 5,3111“ “11". ””1“ 1’1 113,,111‘1,H,,V,L'1(3,,‘3‘1‘133"11,,13‘1,‘ ‘11"““ ‘11."“ ‘ ‘v,|,1,,,‘1 31,1,1'3133,” 33} ,1,?,‘ [3:1 533,513,513 1,1,“: ‘1”3‘3‘ :33??? W 1,111133113...’ 1,3 “1"?“ 1': 31'.‘ 1"11‘1,.«1331'3’3,' 115.1" ‘1‘(,1”111‘;1‘"'1‘""3‘33‘33‘31.l‘?1“,“1“3‘3"l.‘3‘l,1‘1‘1"“‘1‘ "q“ ‘ “"1"”"""4‘11“""“"‘“““ 1,111,115 1,-1.1,‘,111, 31-311. 131319, 31311 .5;.3,1;,111,,. 1,01,31,11” “" ‘ ., “H‘. l 53331335 1,3355“, 31‘""““"“1‘,}"i‘“‘1““““‘ , :1‘1“‘ 5312' “"‘%I 1“L " ‘1‘?" ‘3‘“3“ “1‘i“.‘"‘ ’31‘1‘3“3“1“ ““‘”‘ ‘5““‘“ “ {ME‘W 1 ‘ “,,‘11,‘1‘3. 11 . 1‘1“?“"33‘13‘ "‘3‘““““‘““"‘1‘““ ““““‘“ 1" ‘ 3,3333“ #855,: 151: 3 ‘ “‘ .13.???“ 51,5331" 111. "1‘1: "‘3‘ " '_11‘L.‘11' .31’111' ‘33,‘“ ‘11"? 5‘35} 183‘!“ l,, ,1311-31, ".',1 .1,1 4.3113313. 1351‘, 1,1," 1,1,1‘31, 31,1”13 1,11’131,‘1L;""1,‘I:";:‘l,‘1‘ ‘1‘1‘1"’~’1l,’,1“‘1‘1‘1'1‘1’1‘1 11.1.3133,33?'1'-‘,3,1’11.-‘1"--““-'?‘1“131-113:","15“,??1'1‘3‘1,,‘3-“‘a “1,1,,,,1,1.1,1‘1‘131‘31,L“"113 “‘51! ' ,1:,‘1,a,‘3,1’ 1 511,”: "3' ',1‘ 1,: WM 1 1, ‘,1,‘1 ~‘1.(1‘“ (-5121,.3 " 1313? 1‘1‘1“",‘1 "355,13, 1‘ , 13311113311155.111 W‘1‘1’ ,3 ‘1",““‘.‘1,11,111,11‘11'1.."“‘“‘ 1,1,"331‘1 315,3” " - x ‘.111.' 11- “""3133,15.,‘1"-"13.L1,.‘.'111 1'1 , » . 3 1 1"} '1 .- “‘“‘3l“.1‘11’11111.1111313.H“‘l‘i-‘“““3““11"‘3‘3 “ “~ 31M ‘ ‘3‘“ 3' .r ‘ "“3%“"“‘1‘*X‘3&%{ :“ 3,3,; 33,11,111 LL .51 1.1.1.1313 {3,1,3 4% ‘- . ' “us-3 "3331: 1,:13',‘?‘13113131,l,'313“.21“ ‘ :pi v “ if}, 5K3,» . 1“. 11.‘ .1. 1.12111 1‘19. 11mm; "‘2 ..-1-.-..1-.----1 3'." ‘:‘ :1“ wa,’ 1,,1‘5: ... r “1311 ,;,1,1r 33.1, ‘111'131' ‘5- “‘“‘““““‘;‘ ‘1 ‘131113‘1‘3‘? “ “ "‘:?"5‘1,1‘1,1'1‘“‘ ““““““‘ "5““ \“1"“" 1 .l . .. 3:3‘1‘13; 31-1 3%‘2’3‘3 “1,11 ‘ 43314333133“. 31,3131 ,1',1“" 1,11,, $333,, .153“. (313 31011, 3131;.‘1‘33‘5‘ Rag-11“,, 1, ,,,, 1131‘! $3," ,| V W} ‘v1 1.hMM-MWV 1‘1‘3‘3“ 1““‘:““‘1“ 1‘31‘““'" '1‘1 “"‘“‘“ H,‘ 11-;1. 113,-“ ""1”" "" 8,1‘ 1131"“13‘1‘31‘ 1"1". ‘ ‘1‘4 ’ " ‘«‘1‘""““ 111,111, ““3 "5353115 1'31, 1, 111 3“?“ . .1111 1:1 -.......~1""11-'1'- 333511 12-33 ,1,,,.1;; ,1;.‘11-1, .. ’.3.1’1’ 331”“ “3" "'13" 3:315 ‘11“‘11'1’ f- .m. ‘ ‘a—v- .. . ~= } 1 .w. _ +£ ~43§?:, 2T ,. ‘l".. 11‘1‘1‘1313‘11““"“‘1‘,,.,‘1“131‘31’3‘“‘L,“‘,‘.1,§3, ,_ 11,,,,,13,,,;,:.,,,,,,1£11x ‘c1131‘1 ..?..‘}131‘3‘,1’1 1, $13,513“? ,,,,1;1 ..‘,;,1,,,,,3 ,, 1 1 "51-1: .1. ' .11"15311:...1‘1-1"313111-131‘113'11 2111111. ‘ ‘ 1“”. 1331 “‘11, -.-V , “ 3" 3.3353 "“ 3""“1‘1‘31‘3'. "’11"; 3131‘. ‘-‘i.".’13"3.313333333333333 3111‘ 1, l,1,l. ,1 .. 1131,1331 .11, ,- -. -1 53’1'1‘1’5'941’11‘1‘11‘1 ,, 1 ‘ ‘ “33‘3”" 1"?‘?" L‘"“1‘"“3‘"5L "W‘13‘13-‘3313‘3’3'33‘353‘31141‘.“ - ‘ “‘3; 1.1 “ ‘5“"1‘5‘ “““HI‘W 1‘1,.-1 1“ “““‘1‘ “‘ “‘1‘""““3.“31“.‘r‘?‘?3’1"§?‘1‘ ‘1‘ '31 11‘ r ‘ 3““ ““ “‘“““" 4‘35‘3‘51’1 1““"“ 31,11 “33333 "“3333 -"‘11‘ ‘ ‘5 "1. “1 "“ . ‘3‘13.31.11"'-"'1"’3’1‘ 31‘!" 3‘ ." .111.“ 1 1 ,- " '33,: '- 3,5531%,135‘3' 113 '1111’ 13.9, 833341,’ ‘13,?“ 1,33,33,13 “““‘“‘3‘3““;¢’,l“ larggr‘mq $3,133. , - ; "1’0‘1‘ ,l 1 , , . , . , , 1, r 5 ““““““ "t‘1‘11‘“""’-1’1"““““1”“ 3.5333333513‘131113’13‘331 "‘3‘ "133?? 3 ‘3 1,1, 1, ,1‘111 3“,, "19.11311”, ‘55,, ‘1"1113 33313331,, 155,1, 1,1,1. "?“'33"“}‘1‘,‘}1‘5 1,, 11‘4'1‘1‘5’31111“‘1‘?1‘1111.1‘131‘)‘3‘3‘3333’b"“““““ ?““?3“?“?'3 ‘35-‘13“ 3333,91‘1‘1‘5,‘ ‘ ' ‘11-’13 1.1.1.3131..- 11’311 ' .’ .I ,._ 1,11 5,31 ‘.l‘l ‘31‘3‘? 5,3131 11, "31.151113? ,,1, 3,1,3, 1,, 1,1’ , - "“3““ 5": “‘:“~‘“‘31“‘33‘“1‘3331“ U1‘1‘ 35331-113333? 5331"?“ 1’3‘1‘“ 13,1, ‘1‘. . 3““ . I ‘ , ~ . 1; "3'3"" 31111311-1'11'1117131131' '31- 1111‘ '31 ' ‘ 1 1 .~ 3;.1'1 ~31 .1313"“3‘1‘33'33‘333‘,‘1‘33“‘:3;‘311 33311,, ‘ ‘ ‘ 11‘1;1,11.-,3:1.),,‘:L ,1', , , ‘31; 131.113 "131 1,,3-l ,1331 ,1 13333 113, 331.1 3111“: "““""“I’?‘ 3-'1"1 13,? ""13“,. -. "331133 ”3‘3,“ ‘,‘1‘3 331,53}‘ ,1 31,3,1, . ”,1? ,‘3,““, {11,333 1"" . .1, , ‘3 3.1,?“ 1‘1331‘3333315 ,1 3 313-11333, "3 ‘-13’,1'.‘1,"i"13" 11;:‘1’1, , “ 1.1 "’3' '1’- ‘3 1 1 .- ‘ 3“ 11' ’ 3‘ 3 ‘ "1“““‘1"-3“1“‘"3“ "3“ '- 11 1‘“’-,' 1’1 ”.rr W?‘ 9.75:?" wg.r.—‘-’a—-A :- .~. ““99: ‘1‘: «:55 1-... -, ._ : ~. .4. . ' .1 y- “ 4. . . , ‘ - ,. _ . . A, ,;v .2,"- . 3 “11.. : A; , ‘ ~ A, ’, -':. -' a ,',,-L.:."." “‘3 3?. 3 .1 3?. 11' » ’1 1 ., .1». ., 3333331313313333 1‘3"” 33.1.31.11f.".1“ . 1 13313333,,333333’3, ,3], ,,; , ,3 I 1;},11‘13,3,,;,,.,,,,,,,1,5,,1 3‘1,“ 111,, ,1,- 11. ' 333333311313, 3331313333.; ‘11, . ,3113331331331131.33,. 1- 53.33.931.331 2513?." ‘3 1 .‘1‘3 51"" " . ‘3'? ,, 3331?" 3331333131333. ,1 1,, 5~-mw1v H. iwmww 5 133113.331 1133111311 1111113131.. 3 353113.. Ilfllllllllllllfllll|Lljlllllllllllljlljlfllll This is to certify that the thesis entitled Agriculture, Population, and Development in Guam: Some Options for the Future presented by BRUCE G. KAROLLE has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph D. degfiein Geograghx Major professor Date 7 Z 2 7 Z 7 8 0—7639 L1, RY Michigan State University 9% at. yrs-o AGRICULTURE, POPULATION, AND DEVELOPMENT IN GUAM: SOME OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE By Bruce George Karolle A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Geography 1978 ABSTRACT AGRICULTURE, POPULATION, AND DEVELOPMENT IN GUAM SOME OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE By Bruce George Karolle The principal problem facing Guam, a small developing Western Pacific tropical island controlled by the United States for strategic military purposes, is the identification, control, and utilization of the food-producing base. Nearly all food, manufactures, and investment capital are imported. Can the artificial import economy of the present be decreased and directed toward self—reliance and local resource development? Guam's achievement of a balanced economy and a stabilized population depends on local land control, and a willingness on the part of its people to accept a less conspicuous mass consumption of many goods and services presently available, such as the private automobile. This study addresses these problems by utilizing the following methodology: 1) the regional approach or method, 2) field work techniques, 3) selected quantitative procedures, A) cartographic techniques, and 5) documentation and source acquisition. Spatial differentiation and homogeneity, synthesis, and association provide the conceptual basis of the descriptive analysis. The cartographic material illustrating Guam's site and situation locate the geographic data collected from the following sources: 1) field— work questionnaire, 2) results of the statistical compilations, and 3) spatial analysis of primary and secondary library and government sources. The maps present the locational implications of insular land bases, the island's archipelagic position in the Marianas and Micronesia areas, and the overall proximity to East and Southeast Asia. Additionally, five qualitative maps offer views of the island mosaic. Special attention is focused on the agricultural sector of the economy, which is inventoried. It is shown that a potential food supply exists, and that it is necessary to recognize the interaction of American political economy and traditional Guamanian land tenure and practices. Further, the field research utilized an agricultural questionnaire. One hundred interviews were conducted island—wide within a tri-regional distribution. The study shows that land resources are dominated and controlled by non-local sources; that external powers historically prevented local resource utilization based on self-reliance through self—determination; and that twentieth—century development resulted from a massive United States military establishment which transformed the entrenched subsistence system into a federal welfare community. Additionally, the actual number of active farmers and the size and number of operative fields were found to be small. Less than 1 percent of Guam's civilian work force farmed; just over 1 percent of the island's dry land was agriculturally utilized. Half of the farmers lived on their ranches, a major locational change from past patterns; 80 percent were Guamanian by birth, owned their fields and had little indebtedness, received significant proportions of their annual income from non—farm sources, and consumed major portions of their crop production. Future options and alternatives for economic development require major change. While it has been shown that for over thirty years modernization transformed the cultural and physical environment, this type of American military—political economy is completely imported. Without a military need for the island, redistribution of substantial amounts of American public funds logically would follow. Therefore, a balanced development paradigm is requisite; a model entailing internal supports and reliance on island resource utilization is recommended. With restoration of local land control, this model will augment the reliance upon the welfare imports in a positive way, and prepare the population for a future less dependent on artificial economic structures. This dissertation is dedicated to my Chamorro friends, especially: Salome S. Susuico, Alejandro B. Lizama, Lolita L.G. Huxel, P. Roland Palomo, and Robert A. Rasalan. Si Yuus Maase. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. II. III. IV. INTRODUCTION . Objectives Literature Review Research Methodology Assumptions Hypotheses Field Study A REVIEW OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Climate Land Forms Soils Water THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF GUAM . Early Agricultural Foundations The Early Impact of Spain The American Period: 1898—l9hl Japanese Occupation Post—World War II Changes POPULATION, LAND USE, AND LAND TENURE Population Distribution Government Lands Private Holdings Naturalizations Land Taxes THE ECONOMY OF GUAM Regional Outlook American Military Development The Government of Guam iii . ll 3h 61 . 77 Agriculture Personal and Social Background Location of Farm by Field and Residence Farm Size Land Ownership Farm Land Value Physiography Farm Land Use Crops and Animals Agricultural Labor Investment Farm Expenditures Improvements Credit Role of Government Summary Tourism Manufacturing VI. FUTURE OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Option 1: Guam Without the U.S. Military Option 2: Guam and the Status Quo VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I37 APPENDICES Agricultural Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Al Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bl iv 17. 18. 19. 20. LIST OF TABLES Population and Study Sample of Farmers on Guam by Region, 197A . Rivers of Guam . . Population Estimates — Early Period (1521— 1668) Major Ethnic Groups in Guam By Percentage of Total Population . . . . . . . . . . Number of Guam Inhabitants: 1901 to 1977 Guam Population By Selected Group and Year . Guam Land Ownership: I973 . . . . Naturalized Persons in Guam by Year Military Population in Guam, 1977 . . . . . . . . . Military Expenditures: l96h—l975 (In thousands of dollars) . . . . . Government of Guam Statement of Revenue: 1975 Guam Agricultural Production and Imports, l97h . Annual Farm Expenditures: Averages, 1972—1973 . Tourists and Other Visitor To Guam (1967—1975) Visitor Arrivals In Guam According To Purpose of Trip (1967-1975) - Visitor Arrivals In Guam According To Visitor Origin (1967—1975) Guam' 5 Share Of Total Japanese Travelers Going Abroad (1967-1973) Hotel Occupancy Tax Collections By the Government of Guam (1970—197h), and Guam Visitors Bureau Budget (1970—1975) Estimated Employment In Tourist— related Enterprises On Guam (March 197A) . . . Guam' s International Trade, 1972 by value (Categories of Commodities, Imports and Exports) . . . . . . . . . 10 27—32 39—MO A6_u7 63 71 82 85 86—87 106 113 11h 116 116 118 122 132 Coalo‘xvlrme LIST OF FIGURES Micronesia . . . . . . . . . . . Western Pacific and Micronesia . . . . . . . . . . . Guam Island Relief . Guam Island Federal Lands Guam Island Population 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Guam Island Land Ownership 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Western Pacific Military . . . . . Guam Island Farms and Regions . . . . vi :16 . 12 20 61+ :69 :96 in: Chapter I. INTRODUCTION The American—owned island of Guam is a classic example of the profound impact that a massive military presence can have on a small, relatively underdeveloped economy, particularly the impact on agricul- ture and food supply. Today, the role of agriculture in the Guam economy is limited by the number of farm operators and the size and number of operative farms. The leadership has repeatedly stated that with proper agricultural land utilization Guam could achieve self— sufficiency in fruit and vegetable production. Yet only about 30 percent of the fruit and vegetables required by the civilian popula— tion in 1971 was locally grown. Nearly all grain, meat, and fish are imported from the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Upon casual observation there appear to be sizeable amounts of vacant and unused land throughout the island. However, government control of land excludes nearly one half of the entire island from any agricultural activity, Since most of this is federal military property. Moreover, there is agreement among observers that the disadvantages for food production are Significant. Inherent tropical limitations for farming include soil infertility, soil and plant pests, and fluctua- tions of rainfall from flood to drought. The typhoon discourages agricultural newcomers, and delays the expansion and progress of the existing farm operations. In addition, the institutional and political control of land and other economic factors of production exist to offer 2 competition to agricultural land use. Therefore, a regional analysis of the interrelationships of the spatial variables of agriculture, population, and developmental resources in Guam is needed. The present crucial relationships of a rapid population increase, inflated land prices, and increasing food and energy importa— tion requirements suggest an unbalanced economy. After World War II, development meant a shift away from the primarily self—sufficient agrarian economy to a service— and salary—based economy. In the pre— l9hl period, 90 percent of the working population was engaged in farming and fishing activities, while the census of 1950 showed only about 6 percent of the civilian labor force employed in agriculture. By 1970, of all employees on civilian, private, and government payrolls, less than 1 percent were engaged in commercial agriculture. While this rapid transformation occurred in the economic sector, the population of the island doubled twice in the thirty years between l9h0 and 1970. No substantive agricultural inventory was made, and no cross-cultural provisions were developed and implemented to protect local land tenure. The economic shift from primary to secondary and more properly a shift to tertiary activities positively correlates with the estab— lishment of U.S. Government foreign policies for the Western Pacific and East Asian realm. The American military presence has dominated Guam's post—World War II economic growth. However, since the military immigration and tourist restrictions were lifted in 1962, and the political transfer of "shared" power was offered and accepted by a 3 civil government under the Organic Act, a commercial market sector has developed in Guam‘s economy. Therefore, the geopolitical factor has accounted for most of the recent changes on Guam. Guam's location with respect to Asia is transforming the island landscape. At the present time, several airlines operate regularly scheduled flights between Guam and Asian airports. Five trans-Pacific communication cables connect to Guam. These transporta— tion and communication links place the island relatively close to Asian rimlands; Tokyo and Manila can be reached in a little over three hours' flying time and Hong Kong in slightly over four hours. Conse— Ouently, additional commercial activity has developed within the last five years. Tourism is a major new industry which taps the Asian markets. Over 200,000 Japanese visitors alone came to Guam in 1973; over a dozen modern high—rise hotels exist for this tertiary activity. In addition, as a free port Guam is attracting investments from Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. Banking and construction, high—cost and low-weight manufactures, and oil refining industries are found here today. Some have suggested that Guam become a corporate center and entrep6t like Singapore. Although the impact of Western contacts came early to the island, there is presently a grave danger of a newer form of "fatal impact" by the outsiders. The risks of economic disfranchisement are in evidence. A rapid displacement of land ownership from local control of private land to corporate ownership seems likely under present political and economic circumstances. Family estates of the h past are now commonly subdivided legally for inheritance processing, and large amounts of land are owned by non—residents from East Asia and the United States. Objectives To promote planning for the future, Guam needs input from a geographical investigation. An assessment of the island's agricultural resources is vital. What happens if the U.S. military leaves, or is forced to decrease its expenditures? Will a depressed Asian economy ruin recent advances toward light industry and tourism? How will the growing population provide for its food needs? The following are objectives of this dissertation: l) to examine and explain Guam's existing economy; 2) to determine what might happen to Guamls economy in the event of a withdrawal or drastic reduction of the U.S. military presence, particularly the effects this would have on the island's agricultural self-sufficiency and future prospects; 3) to determine what might happen to Guam's economy if the status quo is maintained, particularly in regard to agriculture, food supply, and diet; A) to recommend some policy changes that the Government of Guam could or should implement to ensure a sounder develop- ment of the island's economy and agriculture. Literature Review The Guam literature written by professional geographers is limited. Several sources on related research are found in 5 non—geographical works, and are available from the fields of anthropology, history, and geology. Geographer Neal Bowers in 1951 described the Mariana archipelago as a whole. However, he pointed out (as did the anthropo— logist Laura Thompson in l9h5) that farming and fishing were major economic activities prior to World War II, and that the military occupation disrupted the primary patterns of subsistance. Both pointed out the incongruence of the two systems. David Lee, in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture of Guam, reviewed the agricultural situation in the late 19603. His contribution never appeared locally, and was not published until 1971. Lee's article posed far more questions than it answered; the data were based on sketchy government sources, and his land use map showed about one half of the island as potential agricultural land. Unfortunately, his depiction of idle land was too generalized for research utility. Lee's contribution consisted of areal synthesis, a recommendation for agronomic research, and a reiteration of the disadvantages of tropical agriculture in general. No data or analysis existed showing the support capacity of Guam for agricultural production. In addition to research contributions by Laura Thompson to Guam's anthropology and Fred Reinman in archaeology, Robert Solenberger's article provided documentation and data on rice cultiva- tion in the Marianas. Ronald Haverlandt, a sociologist, provided insights into early Chamorro agriculture and economic patterns during the Spanish period. Jane Jennison—Nolan contributed a recent review of Guam's land tenure problems. 6 The historians Jane Underwood, Paul Carano, and Marjorie Driver, among others, were relied upon for the chronological records. The natural scientists and other professionals in technical fields provided basic data on the physical environment. Geologist Joshua Tracey, hydrologist Charles Huxel, marine biologist Richard Randall and others have published research since the early 19605. The Uniform Mapping System was established by the Bureau of Planning, and became available in late 1976, the year the research for this disserta— tion was completed. Current investigations abound in Guam in the late 19705; these researchers are establishing a contemporary set of research literature. Research Methodology A review of the literature and field work experience reveals that land use and the control of land in Guam is a result of thirty years of intensive U.S. military occupation and development. As Guam's economic dependency on military spending grew following 19A5, a corres- ponding decline in agricultural production occurred. Furthermore, an increased reliance on food imports by all segments of the population meant a radical shift in land use and worth. There existed a correla— tion between local land ownership decline and the change in labor force employment from agricultural activities to government salary and wage types of work. Little thought in public forum was given to the rapid population growth situation; an economic boom helped suppress alterna— tive considerations. Population migration between Guam and the United 7 States was legal and unlimited in either direction, helping to disguise the negative results of vast economic investment, rapid population growth, and large transfers of population to and from Guam. Assumptions: A balanced economy for Guam assumes that the military will continue to exist in some form as a permanent sector of the economy, but that future expansion and/or reduction of the military role is possible. A stable population is desirable; however out— migration of Guamanians to the United States mainland and the influx of other Americans to Guam contributes to the displacement of the existing local culture and population. Hypotheses: If Guam is to achieve a balanced economy and a stabilized population the following factors are necessary: 1) a greater portion of the island's land base returned to local control; 2) a decreased dependency on United States federal spending; 3) the establishment of a population policy. The results of these assertions depend upon Guamanian control and development of their resources, and their willingness to accept less outside investment in general and specifically a United States cutback in the armed forces budget. Provided that there is a reduction in the large amount of federal money flowing into the Guam economy through military expenditures for land, labor, and capital, it can be predicted that the following will result: 1) Guam's labor force will radically shift to primary tasks, tourism, and other commercial activities; 2) self-reliance and development will hinge on local land control and utilization, and development will focus on farming and fishing; 3) imported food per capita will decline, and local production and "native" food consumption will increase. 8 Based upon these hypotheses, an analysis was made of Guam's resources for all forms of economic development, especially agricul— ture, industry, and tourism, with particular emphasis on the agricultural potential of the island. This analysis will be accom— plished by: 1) search of primary and secondary local data sources; 2) map and photograph use (maps include population and farm distribution; land tenure according to federal, territo- rial, and private categories); 3) field work in Guam, including a survey of farm operators and their existing farm resources and individual opera— tions. Field Study Any individual regional analysis of agricultural development begins with a thorough knowledge of the actual farming community being studied. Since there was a dearth of agricultural literature and data for Guam, an assessment of the present agricultural resources was made by interview. The names and addresses of many of the farm operators were on file with the Department of Agriculture in Guam. Beginning in January, 1973, during this author's field work research, an inventory of the agricultural resources of Guam was made by interview. The research tool, a field questionnaire administered to practicing farmers, contained 172 questions and 189 possible responses. The individual interviews were conducted by delineated survey regions, referred to as North, Central, and South. (See Figure 8, p. 96) 9 The questionnaire utilized in the interviews covered fifteen separate categories of farm resources. The following headings define those categories: 1. Personal and social background 2. Location of farms by fields and residence 3. Size of the landholding(s) h. Tenure of farm operator 5. Value of the agricultural land 6. Physiography of the farm 7. Land use by individual farm 8. Crops and animals by farm 9. Diet of farm household 10. Agricultural labor 11. Investment of capital in equipment and facilities 12. Farm annual expenditures l3. Improvements to the agricultural land 1h. Credit extension 15. Role of government Initially, farm operators and their addresses were obtained from the Department of Agriculture (DA), Government of Guam, at the Mangilao station, and compiled by region. The farmers then were categorized by self-definition as full— and part—time farmers. In the case of those farmers found in the field by the author (i.e., not on the DA lists), the individual's assertion of farmer status and the presence of a farm provided the basis for inclusion in the study; if the person said he/she farmed, and showed the farm as such, then he or She was considered a farmer for the purposes of this study. 10 Table 1 shows the farm population and study sample. The procedure was to find the farmers listed by the DA, and interview as many as possible. Eighty-nine farmers, or 56 percent of the original DA list, were surveyed. During the field work, ninety—seven additional farmers were discovered and reported; eleven interviews were conducted from this group. Thus the survey compiled data from 39.1 percent of the known farmers during the fourteen months of field work ending in March, 197A. Table 1. Population and Study Sample of Farmers on Guam by Region, 197A Number of Farmers Number of Farmers by Region North Central South 1) DA name list 80 38 bl = 159 2) New farmers (found in the field) 19 25 53 = 97 256 3) Interviews by region 31 A2 27 = 100 Source: B. Karolle, Guam agricultural fieldwork (Agana: University of Guam, 1977). Chapter II. A REVIEW OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The purpose of this chapter is to provide an accurate description of the environment as observed in the 19705. Elements of the natural environment discussed here focus on the geographer's view of Guam's climate, land forms, vegetation, soils, and drainage. These land resources, although limited because of the island's small size, are capable of providing the necessities of life if properly utilized. It is a question of the number of people to support, and at what level of "quality of life." The resources found in the physical environment include fresh water, sunshine, seascapes, marine life, forests, air, arable land, and rock. Some might suggest that Guam's resource base is ruined already by overuse and extensive degradation. These resources are thought unique to tropical oceanic islands, and the environment is not easily adapted to technologies from the industrialized Western countries. By providing adequate information about the land and its basic resource base, the author hopes to clarify Guam's options for development. Climate Guam is a tropical island of the Western Pacific located 13 degrees north of the equator (See Figures 1 & 2), and has a daily average temperature of 80° Farenheit with an annual average range of only 2 to 3 degrees. Even though there are two seasons, a dry season (December through April) and a wet season (May through November), the 11 Figure 1. Micronesia l2 mg: .0 ...... 8.82. 825... he. Bis—a .. 3118\9 1W. ....q .. .53: 6.8 2.3.2 é. v 4 u 2 225m. suns... ...... 86...». 2.18. 158.8% 5635 113.335 1.8. .e ...—8.3 . 5.0:. ....o... . flaws... < .. a. u z .4 0 «<0 .3... 25...... :39. 9:39. . .6135: .28....» 85.... EN? 958...: is 13.08.. .951 ...«U .38.. .38... Lee“... 211?... efls_..._.638. ......86 .59.. . 83...... L433. =< mm m. :1}... M.. 2.... ......283 ,. 2:5,... .... h. ...—.5252 6.5.1383. 7 mu 8...? . ......a . _ . . u moz<4m_ 44<1m¢<2 35.5.- as... .835. ...-5*. .133 Y W M. W >\ \A\ l \ NECK on_| 2.33... 8 8.3.8.8855 ......» ......3 22.32 .3083. goo-E awwoo oftowm 8....8. (25,3... 385... 9...... 8.3.... 8 8.29... moz<4w_ Quad...“ 2:. *0 >m0tmmw... anmh we... . I 2.. ea fa... Figure 2. Western Pacific and Micronesia l3 Rm. 6.59.5. .e J. . .. .. -, !1 ,fs .. b 1 .r .- ......uz. _ . 82.39... . Emcee . M n o z «... .m . 030: a g“ I .15.” . u fluvi- . . 321.9 . a N/ 4.3.9.2: . 8:2... .423 ... . /.//.. Ila-... \... r/ . 225m. ..x 0 =0qu ...,...././..i/: (-WU2°¢0-’ ... om m.: :.H :ea ohmm moswoq aonsom I: on m.» e.m oat ead< seem mom om\oe om m.m a.e owe teedeeaeed came: mom om\om om m.e o.H mma meandeaeam aerate mom oa\om om a.» H.H mom teeddaaeaa agape: mom mm\me om o.m m.m Hmm teaddeaeam mama I- Om m.m m.m mma.a sem eaem< mecca A.aev UoQOHo>oQ &\qomo & Amaoohv chooom Asv omoam Ho>msB .xmz Amoao< mo Suwaoq owocwoam Hopoe mo pcflom AH paemv ease to ma6>em .m manta 28 m\mm om m.HH ~.H Jam hem mafim odwflm m\mm om w.m m.o are sum teem teem O\ooa om F.HH m.H wmm hem Godmoa nonwoa II Om I N.m o:m.a hem copes: copes: I- Om m.m m.m oom sem easoa 65a am an o\ooa om w.ma m.H mow hem proo proo o\ooH om 0.5H :.H wmm kmam wHHom aaamm o\ooa om 0.0m m.H 0mm hem oaaom modemwsm< wow o\oom om e.oa w.o flea meaddeaeam ewem< mom o\ooa om w.:H m.H 03m odflmmwaflnm demoed: mom O\OOH Om e.oa w.o mm meandeaeed esmem mom om\ow om m.m e.H saw teeddeaeam meseaeee mom II Om m.e :.m mmm.a maedmeaeam eeeseaee new om\om om m.ma m.H Hwa oawmmfiafigm sowflaono mom oa\ow om m.m H.H em maudaaeead saga oom om\0m om o.oa w.H mom meadeeaeam ammo A45 womoao>oa &\Gomo R Amswohv chooom ARV macaw Ho>msa .Nmz Amoho< yo newcoq omooflwsm HopOB go vasom eodcflpcoo AH enemy .N oHpaB 29 II on I I oma.e mam wees wees hem II On H.m e.m mHm.H mnemoa mmomoe hem II on I I oom.mm omomoaee omomoaee so>mm II On I I oem.a omomoaee sum: o>oo II on m.m e.m mam.a ozomemem omeoaemm 5mm II on :.m m.m ooanm osaflasom unawadmm hem II om I w.: omm.m mwnwmmcH omnmmmcH hem II om m.m a.m oma.a easemmm cememmm II cm m.e o.m mem mam ashram semenm cameo om\om om o.m a.a mom eemmoem mommm om\om om m.m o.m amm mam maemem steam mm\me om a.m a.a emm mam mnemom omemsm om\ow om H.w m.m com mom mamno< Hawaoz om\om om m.m m.m mom mam maemem moans cameo II om H.~ ~.m 04w ommmomm memo Ts: womoao>om &\aomo & Ammoohv chooom ARV oQOHm Ho>wma .xmz Amomo< mo npwsoq ommamosm Hmpoa mo pamom mosampaoo AH pmomv .m manna _—_-———-—-—-——_——.4—- can 5.1-.Jw L-x_.-_‘M__a .-.p , -_ h- a“. _,,_.... -— 29 II on I I oma.e mam meme mmam hem II On H.m e.m mmm.m ememoe ememoe hem II on I I oom.mm omomoeee omomoaee .HmbIHm II On I I oem.a omomomee 55mm o>oo II on a.m e.m mam.m esomemem omeomemm ham II om a.m m.m ooa.m enemasem enemasem 5mm II on I 0.: omm.m mmmmmmsH ommmhqu mom II on m.m a.m oma.a easemmm easemmm II cm m.» o.m mem mam easemm easemm ommoo oa\om om o.m a.e mom eemeoem mosam om\om om m.m o.m awe mam maemem steam mm\me om a.m a.m emm mam mnemom mmessm om\om om H.m m.m com sem museum fleeces om\om om m.m m.m mom gem mnemom moans admoO II On H.e e.m cam ommaoem menu 1 .ae pomoao>om &\Gomo & Ammmohv whooom Amv omoam Ho>mme .Nmz Amomo¢v mom< owmmgomfim owomb opaampab mo common omwho>< mo nquoq omocwmnm H8905 mo pawom easempaoo AH paemv .m manta -——_.. -_.r__ . 3O .melmwm .mm .mpma ”HH ommnm .mmagmopmmz mamlmomoao9\hwoasoomw "meadow ow\o: om I I I hem mamw< onmm< os\om om H.m e.m Hem mam enema mamasaee II on I I ome.m arm omem omem A.mev oomoao>om &\mogo & Ammmohv whooom ARV omoam Ho>ms9 .xmz Amo90< mo npwcog ommammmm Hopoe yo pdflom easempaoo Am enemy .m magma 31 m.mm mm.» com.» I I I eepeam I I oom.m I I I mam om mg I I oom.m H.m ma me.o mppmo I I oem.m m.m ma me.o emaem I I 0mm.m e.m mm mm.o mmemmeamm I I omm.m m.m ma am.o ememm I I oem.m m.m ea Hm.o esteem: I I omm m.m mm ee.o enmem I I omH.H o.e em ae.o meseamee I I oewnm I I I oomhoaoe I I ooe.m m.m ea me.o mammaemo I I omm m.m em oe.o seam I I oao.m a.e am mm.o name I I 0mm a.e am mm.o mammem I I owe m.» om mm.o meemaem I I oom.a m.e mm em.o ememoe I I com.» I I I osez I I ooo.mm I I I oaepeepm I I ooo.m a.m em mm.o eeesmm I I owe m.m om mm.o mesmem I I oom.m I I I team I I ooo.m m.m am am.o came: I I com m.m ea mm.o magmas I I omm e.» mm mm.o teams: I I ooo.m o.m ma am.o seam I I oom.e I I I mpgom meow mom myo AHQ\QHV Aamav mmflofiH mewflomflQ hpflmflmwflH QOHPGHPdmo PGGHOHmwwwOO mSwZ owmwaomwo omomo>< :wfimom Admamwm Iaoo mo mafia mwozdm .pz H Am pmmmv swam mo mmo>fim .m MHQmB 32 .mmm .m Amrma ..ooH .mopaoo compoamomcH nope: .w.z .mopqunmmz psomv mayo: one mo moomsomom .mmmmm .mpmmm .qooooq moo sm> mawmlmpm .ma .mpma ”HH omonm .mwammopmmz GQ I I I mamm¢ I I oeH.m e.m mm mm.o mamaseee m.ma e.mm oom.mm I I I omem m.w: m.mm oom.:H I I I mflaw I I oom.m I I I ememoe I I oom.ma I I I omomoame s.mm m.em oom.mm I I I arm: I I oom.m I I I Omaoamm< I I oom.m I I I enemasem N.>: m.mH omm.: I I I GmnwmmaH I I 0mm.: I I I omhmmw< I I omw.m I I I ammon< I I oem.a o.e em mm.o mosem I I one m.» cm em.o seasm I I osa.m m.e mm mm.o amassm I I oom.m o.m z: mm.o afloat: I I 00> m.m mm mm.o moadm I I om:.m I I I moso I I omH.H r.» em No.6 esmmm I I owe >.® ma Hw.o oHHm I I ommna ~.~ mm Hm.o mmsmoe mmow mom mwo AMQ\SHV AQHEV moaoaH ommmnommm mpmmaopaH coepmmpmoo pgomomwmooo osoz owmonomfld owmmo>< zwmmom admafiom Isoo mo mafia mmoasm .pB H emsampeoo Am paemv .m memes 33 soil and water and their ecology involves middle latitude, or mesothermal, climatic regions. Soil water research for the tropical soils and particularly those of Guam requires attention. The hindrances of Guam soils include intensive leaching, acidity, limited minerals of parent rock, and soil depth. However, one overall problem that regular irrigation may help solve involves soil water balance and moisture capacity. Since most Guam soils tend to drain easily in relationship to the intermittent rainfall patterns, the spatial fluctuation of precipitation, and high evaporation rates, dry weather conditions are common. Rapid drainage, high air tempera- tures, and wind all combine to cause upper soil to dry out rapidly. Preliminary observations suggest that though many soils here may not even possess moderate water-retaining capacities, practical farm techniques, i.e., raising humus content, and irrigation may offer the solutions necessary for intensification of crop production. The recent establishment of an agricultural experimental station offers potential scientific research to measure accurately the ecology of the island soils. Farmers may expect in the near future soil analyses which properly forecast their individual field capacity and soil moisture requirements. Chapter III. THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF GUAM The land of Guam has been occupied continuously by a people long enough to have established a distinct cultural identity. These people today examine and interpret that experience in new and different ways since the Americans came at the turn of the nineteenth century. Essential to our understanding that experience is knowledge gained by viewing that cultural development. To analyze the present day resources of the land and how these resources are defined, measured, and developed requires a review of past occupancy. This chapter attempts to provide a perspective on the interrelations of the main themes found in historical geographies of place. Since Guam came to be dominated by the outsiders, this review provides insight on the processes of culture, nature, and economic development. The Chamorros of Guam and the Mariana Islands were the native inhabitants at the time of discovery by Magellan in 1521. The present Guamanians continue to speak the Chamorro language. Culturally, the Chamorros at the time of Western contact were of Malayo—Polynesian stock, having migrated from Southeast Asia by sailing to Guam as early as 2000 B.C. They were isolated from metal use, employing neolithic tools of polished stone and shell, large house posts, or latte (usually made from quarried limestone), outrigger canoes, pottery, and agricul— ture, including rice cultivation.12 3h 35 The pre-contact Chamorros are grouped with other Western Pacific islanders called Micronesians, but they are also linked by pottery and language with the Philippines.13 Chamorro written records are nonexistent; therefore, there is little knowledge of their development during the pre—Spanish periods. Archaeological evidence suggests a material culture of two periods, pre—latte and latte.lh Settlement was dispersed and some houses were built upon stone foundations, called latte, by the time the Europeans arrived. Early Agricultural Foundations Review of the accounts on early Chamorro gardening offers a reconstruction based on a wide range of professional interests previously mentioned in the section on the literature review. The farming of the Chamorros was based on food crops of rice, taro, yams, breadfruit, and coconut. Other crops were bananas, sugar cane, ginger, and cycad nuts, or fadang (Cycas circinalis). The seed—nuts are 2Conversations with Marvin Montvel—Cohen, Territorial Archaeologist, Guam; Laura Thompson, The Native Culture of the Mariana Islands, Bulletin 185 (Honolulu: Bishop Museum, 19h5) p. h; and Laura Thompson, Guam and Its People (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, l9h7) p. 1h. 3Alexander Spoehr, "Marianas Prehistory," Fieldiana: Anthropology, Vol. 98 (Chicago: National History Museum, 1957) pp. l7h—l75. thred M. Reinman, "Guam Prehistory: A Preliminary Field Report," Prehistoric Culture in Oceania, pp. hl-SO; and Laura Thompson, Archaeology of the Mariana Islands, No. 100 (Honolulu: Bishop Museum, 1932) pp. Sh-SB. 36 nutritious after de—poisoning and grinding. Fishing accounted for a major portion of their food-producing activities. Fishing was done mainly by hooks and nets; fishponds and traps were also utilized.ls It is rice cultivation that distinguishes the Chamorro culture from that of other Micronesians. Thompson stated that in the early 1930s rice was planted during the month of October in the southern river valleys of Guam. She reported that these "extensive deposits of alluvial soil make excellent rice lands." Yawata identi- fied the Chamorro rice variety as "long—awned," the Javanese variety, called in Indonesian boeloe, and found today in Java, Bali, parts of Celebes, the Philippines, and Taiwan. He supported Safford's account of tracing migration to the Marianas from Southeast Asia. Both Safford and Yawata believe the Chamorros brought with them the rice technology of the Indonesian—Philippine Islands.l6 Archaeological evidence found in Guam and elsewhere in the Marianas reveals that the actual technology for food cropping and rice cultivation existed. Solenberger suggested that forests were cleared by fire (slash-burn). Tools of stone and shell, such as akoa or 5Jacques Barrau, Subsistence Agriculture in Polynesia and Micronesia (Honolulu: Bishop Museum, 1961) p. 22; William E. Safford, The Useful Plants of Guam, U.S. National Herbarium, Vol. IX (Washing— ton, D.C.: Smithsonian, 1905) pp. 97—98; Robert R. Solenberger, "The Changing Role of Rice in the Marianas Islands," Micronesica, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Agana, Guam: University of Guam, 1967) pp. 97—103; Ward J. Barrett, Mission in the Marianas: An Account of Fr. Diego Luis de Sanvitores and His Companions, 1669—1670 (Minneapolis; University of Minnesota Press, 1975) pp. 12-21. Ichiro Yawata, "Rice Cultivation of the Ancient Marianas Islanders,’ in J. Barrau's Plants and the Migrations of Pacific Peoples, A Symposium (Honolulu: Bishop Buseum, 1963) pp. 91-92; Solenberger, 1967, pp. 97—98; Thompson, l9h5, pp. 27—29; Safford, 1905, pp. 153—15h. I 37 fOSinos, adzes, axes, and Chisels, as well as wooden digging sticks (dagau) were utilized by Chamorros. A type of sickle (faucille) for rice cutting was reported in 1825, and is considered the prototype of the metal knives used in the post—contact period.17 While many of the physical aspects of the Chamorro farming techniques have been reconstructed, one aspect of rice cultivation remains a mystery. Wet rice was cultivated in Spanish times, but no evidence of a pre—contact irrigation system exists, nor evidence that the wet rice system required a plow and draft animals to pull it. Solenberger suggests that the terms "irrigation and wet rice cultivation" are carelessly used; flooded lowland fields and water- holding capacities of the heavy river soils of Guam may have been enough for the early peoples of the Marianas to grow wet paddy. Safford and Yawata described the simple rice field systems in the Marianas in the late nineteenth century. Therefore, some authorities conclude that both wet and dry varieties were produced by the early Chamorros. Less is known specifically about early settlement patterns and population size. Sanvitores stated that the Chamorros lived in 19 hamlets and villages of various sizes. Coastal settlements ranged 17Solenberger, 1967, pp. 98-99. lBSolenberger, 1967, pp. 99—101. 19Luis de Sanvitores wrote from 1669 until his death in 1672. The two English translations read by this author, exclusive of Laura Thompson's references, are by Margaret Higgins, Guam Recorder, 1936- 1939, and Ward Barrett, Mission in the Marianas, 1975. 38 from 50 to 150 huts, and interior river valley hamlets from 6 to 20 huts. His estimate of the number of settlements for Guam were 160 to 180 such villages and hamlets. Barrett wrote that the "160 hamlets of 1668" were reduced to 7 villages in the 16803.20 It is estimated that the Guam population was 50,000 at the time of Western contact, with as many as 100,000 Chamorros in the entire Marianas archipelago. (See Table 3) The numerous settlement units (songsong) were scattered, but probably corresponded to the coastal plains with some harborage nearby, and to the interior valleys where an adequate water supply was located. Apparently the Chamorros divided Guam into districts which contained several settlements each. According to Thompson each district contained a socio—economic structure. The noble class (matua) ruled the best of the district lands and fishing grounds; therefore, power rested in inherited wealth. The upper class also controlled the manufacture of money, canoes, and trade. The middle class (atchaot) assisted the nobles, while the lower class (mangatchang) was restricted spatially, as well as socially, in each community. Within each village or hamlet were various numbers of houses situated by class and clans. The nobles generally built their houses on latte stones, which were parallel pairs of stone posts with a capstone upon which the floor was built. Yawata suggests the design of 20Thompson, 19u5, p. 12; Barrett, 1975, p. 55. The Spanish found it difficult to establish their administration based on a decentralized Chamorro pattern. 39 Table 3. Population Estimates - Early Period (1521—1668) Estimate-Total Number Source (Where Given) Reference GUAM 30,000 35,000 M0,000 M0,000 potential Ah,000 50,000 60,000 60,000 MARIANA ISLANDS h0,000 h0,000-50,000 h0,000—90,000 50,000 minimum 50,000 minimum Reconstructed from Jesuit Housecounts Reconstruction from Tobias Kotzebue, 1821 Reconstruction, Kotzebue 1821 from Juan de la Conception Reconstruction, Kotzebue, 1821 from Murillo Velarde Reconstruction by Garcia, 1936-39, from Sanvitores Reconstruction, Kotzebue, 1821, based on Marion Crozet Kotzebue, 1821 Nurillo Anson Fritz, l90h Thompson, 19h7 Thompson, 19h7 Thompson, 19A7 Thompson, 19A7 Thompson, l9h7 Thompson, 19h7 Roth, 1891 Bowers, 1950 Spoehr, l95h Bowers, 1951 Cox, 1917 Roth, 1891 A0 Table 3. Continued Estimate-Total Number Source (Where Given) Reference (Guam, Rota & Tinian) 50,000 minimum Reed, 1952 60,000 Crozet Roth, 1891 73,000 Freycinet, 1829 Thompson, l9h7 70,000-100,000 100,000 Jesuit estimates 100,000 Joseph & Murray, 1951 Olive, 1887 Thompson, l9h5; Corte, 1807a Source: Jane H. Underwood, "The Native Origins of the Neo-Chamorros of the Mariana Islands," Micronesica, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Agana: University of Guam, 1976) pp. 203-20h; 1973, p. 15. Al the slanted capstone is traced to the Philippines where rice granaries are constructed. Such structures exist to prevent rats from climbing up and into the grain house.21 The Chamorro resource base has been found to support a reasonably high subsistence system. The people utilized stone, bone, shell, and clay for tools to plant and harvest field crops, catch fish, and grind nuts. Their sailing vessel, the flying proa, or an outrigger canoe rigged with a lateen sail, deserves recognition. In addition to fishing with hooks and nets they used spears and a nerve—numbing poison which stunned the fish until picked out of the water. Hunting was limited to large fruit bats (fanihi), a small variety of bat, fowl (domestic type of which was raised for food), and coconut crab (ajuju).22 Preparation of food and medicine was accomplished by steaming in an earth oven, boiling in pottery, or roasting on fire. Stone mortars and wooden pestles were used daily for husking rice, grinding 23 cycad nuts, and crushing herbs. The Early Impact of Spain While the historical period of Spain's domination lasted some 377 years from the time of discovery until American possession, the early period was crucial in terms of agriculture, population, and development. After discovery in 1521, it was not until 1565 that 21Thompson, 19h5, pp. l2—lh; Solenberger, 1967, pp. 97-98. 22Thompson, l9h5, pp. 29-30. 23Thompson, l9h5, pp. 33-3h. A2 Spain took formal possession of Guam, and established trade and administrative hegemony. Thereafter, Guam served as a regular port of call for the Manila-Acapulco trade route for the Spanish galleons. From Legazpi's visit in January, 1565, to the arrival of Sanvitores in 1668, the Chamorros were visited by and conducted trade with Spanish, Dutch, and English traders and explorers. Chamorro and European contact focused on the exchange of food and water for iron and new tools. The Spanish, in establishing the trans—Pacific trade, formalized the need for a Guam harborage that transformed Guam and the Marianas.2 The following account is summarized mainly from the report QEEE. Historic Preservation Plan. After the Philippines was secured for Spain, and another Spanish navigator, Urdaneta, discovered the route from Manila to the prevailing westerly winds of the North Pacific, a round trip in the Pacific was deemed feasible. A unique maritime institution was established: the Spanish galleon trade from Mexico to the Philippines. Each year, usually in April, one or more ships set forth from Acapulco, Mexico (150 N Lat.), laden with Mexican Silver for Manila. The west- ward route followed the Central American coast from Acapulco to the tropical (Northeasterly) trade winds and the westward (North Equato- rial) currents. The sailing galleons of that day needed at least eight weeks to reach Guam (130 N Lat.), nearly 8,000 miles away. Thus, the Marjorie M. Driver, Spanish Galleon, paper given at the Chamorro Studies Convention, Guam, January, 1977. Thompson, 19h7, pp. 100-107; Paul Carano and Pedro C. Sanchez, A Complete History of Guam (Tokyo: Tuttle, 196A) pp. hh—AT. A3 most favorable east—to—west ocean passage made Guam an indispensable rest stop for this part of the trans-Pacific voyage. By late spring the galleons would arrive in Manila across the Philippine Sea, passing through the San Bernadino Strait and around the southwest coast of Luzon Island to Manila. By midsummer the galleons would leave Manila with their Oriental treasure bound for the California coast. The "northern passage" was most difficult sailing because of the typhoon season occurring in the high sun months and the lack of local direc- tional sailing winds. The eastward passage from the Philippines was far to the north, between 35 and MO degrees latitude. The route passed between north Luzon and Formosa, passing the southern Japanese islands into the Westerlies, and extending to the northern California coast, thence another 3,000 miles south to Acapulco. This voyage lasted about five months, and the goal was to leave Manila in summer and arrive in Mexico by Christmas. This trade system lasted from 1565 to about 1815, terminating with Mexican independence. Guam's function in this annual movement was as a supply stop on the southern leg. Umatac Bay was the traditional port, and the galleons left Provisions and personnel, including soldiers, laborers, and priests with royal dispatches.2S The decision by the Jesuits to missionize the natives resulted in the occupation of Guam by Spanish civil personnel, an occupation that transformed the Chamorro system. The annual Spanish commercial stop and sporadic visitations by other Europeans altered the native 25Guam Historic Preservation Plan (Agana: Government of Guam Department of Parks and Recreation, 1976) pp. 11—12. Ah development of Guam very little. But as a result of open warfare and epidemic diseases, within thirty years the population of Guam—— variously estimated from 30,000 to 60,000—-was reduced to about 5,000 6 (See Table 3) by 1699.2 According to Thompson, the missionaries were initially well received by the Chamorros, but Jesuit interference with traditional values was met with open resistance. An official Spanish census for 1710 recorded only 3,678 Chamorros in the entire Marianas (h81 in Rota); 3,197 Chamorros and A17 mestizos comprised the total population of Guam in 1710.27 Both Thompson and Carano speak of the decline in the Chamorro way of life during the period of the first seventy years of the eighteenth century. The Spanish relocated practically all the popula— tion of the Marianas to Guam; they resettled all Chamorros in a few villages. The Chamorro population continued to decrease to the point that the reports described the Chamorro era as over. Thompson admits that "only the Chamorro language persists as an integrated functioning link between the ancient and modern culture in Guam."28 However, recent historical evidence may help to suggest an alternative viewpoint. Underwoodassertsthat based.upon original Spanish census records the Chamorro population constituted the largest single group 26 Jane H. Underwood, "Population History of Guam: Context of Microevolution," Micronesica, Vol. 9, No. l (Agana: University of Guam, 1973) PP- 11—13; Underwood, 1976, p. 203. 27 Thompson, l9h5, p. 3; Underwood, 1976, p. 203. 28Thompson, l9h5, p. 3; Carano, 196M, pp. 89—120. __l..s.._ -...-.m_'.»-.¢_h‘- - - ' - ‘ -—T..hs-a—a.—"'“ - 135 within the total population. (See Table A) However large the initial decline of the Chamorros, they were never entirely annihilated as concluded by earlier records. Therefore, the data in Table A shows the population composition historically. The Spanish-Chamorro confrontation ended in near disaster for the remaining few thousand survivors of the wars (1670—1695) and the epidemics of the early eighteenth century. Development of Guam following the Spanish conquest consisted of Jesuit construction and missionization of the reamining few villages. The Jesuits were primarily credited with the introduction of new varieties of food crops--corn, for example-—and domesticated dogs, swine, cattle, horses, and carabao. They exposed the Chamorros to new methods in food production and processing, such as baking breadfruit in ovens. The Jesuit involvement ended in 1769 during the historical period of cultural disintegration, and was replaced by the Order of St. Augustine.29 The Spanish government introduced a colonial system of economic development which depended entirely on outside material support for the non-Chamorros. The annual appropriation fostered a closed monetary system; at first the annual funding came from Mexico and lasted until 1808, and then the money came from the Philippines until the 18208. This colonial money—wage economy was largely manipulated for and by the governor and the non—Chamorros, or outsiders. For the Chamorro population money came only indirectly from the governor's expenditures. 29Guam Historic Preservation Plan, 1976, pp. 12—13. . ......1.- ~ ——.._———_.wm-n ‘9. _‘ .. W-h—g A6 om:.m mm.mm oa.m mm.as ms.mm mo.o mm.m mmme mas.m so.mm efi.m om.ms sm.mm mo.o mm.a mmme mom.m mm.sm II ee.ms II II II mmma mmm.m II em.a os.es sm.em mm.om me.m mama mam.a II no.0 sm.mm mm.em mm.mm mm.m meme aem.s II ms.o ee.om mo.om ms.mm om.m Home omo.s II mm.o mo.am om.om mm.ma ms.m oomm Hoo.e II ms.o sm.am oo.om se.em mm.m some mmm.m II sm.em sm.em II em.om mm.s emea oom.m II om.o Ha.sm mm.mm sm.ma om.s moem smm.m II II sm.ms Hm.mm Hm.mm oa.s mmem mmm.m II II mm.ma II II II mmsa :Hm.m II II mm.mm II so.mm II case mmomezmommm mpcmcnoom ommpmoz mmoome mmmmsmz some: mmnompo mo>mpnz Iom one eat them mmeoe one emmmsemm mammommmo mommmmamm somewadmom Hmpoe mo mwmpaoomom hm swam am mmsomo omflflpm MOnoz .: manna A7 .m .m Amwma noomosaoo mo Psofipmmmom meompmmespm memmImmm .mm .mma .m .smmm .osemeo mmom .m .mema .eoosmoesm was sooomm mmpsoomoomoc one nmmflmcm “mamm .mwma Sago “pommpmnm "moomdom .mmovumHmH oflmmomm one mmthmamz mmOPpmadz mmpqopaoomoo ”mpsomom momaoo omeIwmma mom moUSHoQH p .ommalwmwa mom mpmomom mammoo gmfinmmm gm hmommpmo mwnp Home voosaoxo momwpmoz m mmm.:m II ms.om mm.om II II II osma mm:.mm II em.mm mm.sa II II II omma mme.mm II om.m Ha.mm II II II meme omm.mm II no.0 mo.mm II II II osmm mem.m II ms.o mm.om II II II Home ome.m mm.ma mm.m mm.oe mm.os mo.o mo.a omme mmomezmommm mpaovqoom ommpmoz mmooma mmmmzmz some: mammeo noemmmz Iom one one team mmeoe 9 one mmmsmmm nmsmommmo nosemmemm m possessoo .s omens h8 Furthermore, the Chamorro population probably viewed development in terms of survival. While they remained small in numbers the overall portion remained significant, and large enough to suggest cultural continuation. A blend of tradition and innovation was crucial to their economic and cultural survival. While these people continued their subsistence ways they also adapted.3O The original Chamorro order adapted to the new money system by forming a family—based reciprocal exchange system. According to Haverlandt, the Chamorro utilization of the introduced money economy basically is a response to the Spanish colonial system, and he describes it in terms of a survival mechanism. Money became useful for prestige ranking, or status, and for satisfying obligations of the family within the local community. The involuted economic-social system that developed in eighteenth— and nineteenth-century Guam under the Spanish suggests a Chamorro innovation. Thus, the historical accounts describing on the one hand the paucity of material accumula— tion by the Chamorros, or the newer-term Guamanians, and on the other hand the Guamanian ability to acquire money are better appreciated.31 Decline of Spanish power in the 1820s and 18308 meant Guam had to rely more on trade and commerce of the world economy. The mid— Pacific whaling era utilized Guam as a favored port of call. Also, 3OR.O. Haverlandt, "The Guamanian Economic Experience," Vol. III, Part VI, The SOcial-Economic Impact of Modern Technology Upon a Developing InSular Region: Guam (Agana: University of Guam Press, 1975) p. 105; Thompson, 19A7, pp. 21-23. 31Haverlandt, 1975, pp. 105-107. 1+9 Guam experienced a favorable administrator, Governor Villalobos. He stimulated the economy by encouraging the production of exportable goods, mainly food supplies for the Whalers and trading vessels.32 The American Period: l898-l9h1 The United States acquired Guam as a result of the Spanish- American War; by December, 1898, Guam officially was a U.S. possession. In that month, by executive order, the U.S. Navy provided governance and development for Guam until 1950 and 1962.33 Initial reforms made by the Naval government were mandated: English language requirement, large estates expropriated, island-wide land tax reform, economic peonage and concubinage abolished, and needed health and sanitation reforms initiated. The most important cultural result of this transfer of power to the Americans was that the U.S. Navy, rather than the Spanish governor, became the leader of the poli- tical system. According to Walter Scott Wilson, the Naval administra— tion did little to change the Guamanian way of life. Wilson writes that . the Catholic Church continued in its important role as center of community life. . . . the center of life in the village was the church. When the men went to work in their fields, they sometimes had to journey for a day or more. The basic economy of Guam was subsistence agriculture. Copra was also produced by households as a cash crop. As in former 32Guam Historical Preservation Plan, 1976, pp. lh—15. 33On July 31, 1950, the U.S. Congress passed the Organic Act which established Guam as an unincorporated territory of the United States with a civilian government; in 1962 President Kennedy ordered suspension of Naval security clearance requirements which effectively ended any direct U.S. Navy rule for Guam. 50 days, the basic unit of production was the household. Households were augmented by members of the older generation and sometimes by women or men who came to the family by marriage. Kinship ties extended well beyond the confines of the households and, although the household was nominally self— sufficient, there was extensive sharing and exchange of food between households related by kinship, including marriage and god—parental relationships. Relationships between persons and households formed complex interlocking networks. Social ties were symbolized and cemented by annual fiestas given in each village for its patron saint. Other social occasions, including marriages, baptisms, and funerals, also called for feasts and brought people together from all parts of the island. Each household prepared and served the food at village fiestas and each household was assisted by related households. Fiestas and other special occasions served both to create and to discharge whole systems of obligations between households and individuals. In addition to the subsistence economy and copra production, wage work became available with the military establishment. A few families continued to operate small businesses and others also established businesses during this period. Guamanians were given the opportunity to join the U.S. Navy, but opportu— nities for Guamanians and other minority groups were severely restricted by racial policies then in effect. To supplement the limited educational opportunities afforded by the Catholic Church, the Navy established the beginnings of a public school system. The Navy Government of Guam placed very little authority in the hands of the people. Nevertheless, the Guamanian people began to acquire a political awareness and a desire to improve their status. The American influence on the local culture was profound, but there were no traumatic changes to disturb the equilibrium of the society and culture. There developed on Guam in this period [pre-World War II] a dual community: the local Chamorro community and the U.S. military community. Although there was much interaction between members of both communities, they remained separated by language, culture, and standard of living.3- 31'Walter Scott Wilson, "Historical Summary of Cultural Influences on the People of Guam," Vol. III, Part VI, The SOcial- Economic Impact of Modern Technology Upon a Developing Insular Region: Guam (Agana: University of Guam Press, 1975) pp. 93—9h. 51 During the first forty years of U.S. administration of Guam, the population growth of the Guamanians was significant. (See Table 5) From 1900 to l9h0 the census figures Show an increase of 12,6lh which represents a 130 percent increase in population growth. The average annual growth rate of this period was 3.25 percent. Thus the Guamanian population doubled in Slightly over thirty years. This trend continued at an increasing rate, and provides the main distinc- tion of the American period. Agricultural development during the pre-World War II period focused on limited help in the form of farm assistance. To increase local production the Naval administration established in 1905 an agricultural experiment station in Agana. The idea was to teach improved agricultural methods including the introduction of new plants, seeds, fertilizers, and implements. Emphasis was placed upon teaching of livestock breeding and care, and instructions for increasing the production of coconuts for cash, and food crops such as rice and corn.35 However, the U.S. Department of Agriculture was called in and apparently intended to develop the original Navy farm station in Agana into a thriving extension prototype that is characteristic of USDA. In 1909 the new Department of Agriculture was granted 1,332 acres of 36 land in two locations, Piti and Cotal. While the 32 acres in Piti 35Thompson, l9h7, p. 130. 36 pp. 37—38. Annual Report of the Governor of Guam, (Agana, Guam 1910) 52 Table 5. Number of Guam Inhabitants 1901 to 1977 Increase over preceding period Census Date Total Number Number Percent 1977: 123,637 21,578 21.1 1975 102,059 17,063 20.1 1970 8A,996 17,952 26.8 1960 67,0hh 7,5A6 12.7 1950 59,A98 37,208 166.9 19h0 22,290 3,781 20.A 1930 18,509 5,23A 39.A 1920 13,275 1,A69 12.A 1910 11,806 2,130 22.0 1901 9,676 -_ __ aEstimate based on 1970 figure and a 3 percent average annual increase. bGuam Commissioners' Report, 1975. Source: Statistical Abstract, 1976, p. 2. 53 were similar in physiography and accessibility to the Agana area, the additional 1,300 acres were remote and of poor agricultural quality. Besides being of low fertility, the soils of the volcanic plateau of the region are highly subject to erosion due to the severity of slope. The Cotal area is owned by the Government of Guam and remains unused even today except for recreation-—hikers going to the Ylig river, and motorcyclists who use the slopes and flatter surfaces for their bike tracks. Efforts by the USDA to stimulate agriculture for island—wide increases in planted acreages progressed slowly. In 1917 the governor passed a measure that required landowners to till more of their lands, or to lease their lands for tenant usage. A "back to the soil" program followed the typhoon of 1918, and a compulsory labor law was passed for men over sixteen and under sixty years of age. This law was later modified so that each family unit was required to cultivate a certain amount of agricultural land on the basis of family size.37 The Department of Agriculture, in order to further stimulate crop and animal agriculture, developed the following program in 1918: l) a public campaign of education to establish a model farm, and extension program, h—H clubs, a yearly agricultural fair; 2) a farm credit system; 3) a tax-exempt animal program; A) a rural highway construction program; and 5) a marketing system. 37Annual Report of the Governor of Guam, 1919, pp. 12—1h. 5A The central market was located in a regular Agana market place known as the Farmers' Market, and a government trade commission was given regulatory powers to oversee the marketing system.38 Copra export success was achieved in the late 19208 and lasted until 1932. Then the USDA developed a program to cultivate commercial kapok (Ceiba pentandra) to increase exports. The government required kapok trees to be planted on all government lands leased to farmers, guaranteed purchases of all kapok, cleaned the seed, and exported the crop.39 Rice production was also encouraged in the 19308. The government provided materials for river dam construction with volunteer labor, made loans available for rice land purchase by private companies, and required government agencies to purchase Guam—grown rice rather than imported rice. Consequently, the planted rice acreage increased from 197 acres to 6hO with yields also increasing. During the years 1930 and 1931, a yield of 20 bushels per acre existed, and by 1937 yields were averaging hl.5 bushels."O Juan S. Aflague reported in 1935 that the market demand for rice averaged about 2,335,000 pounds over the previous three years. The 1935 production of local rice from 260 acres was hl6,000 pounds, which left a 1,919,000-pound import figure. Therefore, about 22 8 3 Annual Report of the Governor of Guam, 1918, p. 1h. 39Annual Report of the Governor of Guam, 1933, p. l; Carano, 196A, p. 239. "OThompson, 19h7, p. 13. —fi—w Wfi-uug 4‘; .A“ _~__.____‘ t 3 _ ... ..Q“. a . ‘5'" , S. 55 percent of the rice consumed was grown locally at a time when the average per capita consumption of rice for Guamanians was approximately 116 pounds per year."1 Thompson's map showing 1939 land utilization locates the major rice lands in Asan, Piti, Naval Station, Agat, Umatac, Merizo, and Inarajan with a total average rice acreage of 6h0 acres. Land planted in corn amounted to 752 acres harvested out of about 1,500 acres of known corn acreage (corn is usually a two-season crop in Guam)."2 By 19hl the Department of Agriculture station, in order to carry out its goals, had purchased 91 plows, 2h cultivators, 911 pounds of vegetable seeds, 300 pounds of improved rice seed, and various types of livestock for breeding purposes. All of these items were made available, at cost, to the local farmers. To reach the farmers by personal contact, extension agents were available. In 19h0 the island was divided into four extension service districts. It was the respon— sibility of the agents to work with agricultural clerks and various farmers' cooperatives, to offer demonstration and field meetings, and M3 to provide school training for students interested in agriculture. Japanese Occupation The period from December, l9hl, to July, l9hh, was a harsh and difficult one for the Guamanian community. The war between Japan and the United States Shocked most Guamanians. Carano said, "That Japan "lJuan S. Aflague, "Agricultural Report," Vol. 12, Guam Recorder (Agana: Government of Guam, 1935) p. 205. "2Thompson, 19h7, pp. 136—139. u3Carano, 196A, pp. 255—257. 56 would ever capture Guam was something no Guamanian ever thought possible." Confusion and terror was real among the people. The Japanese Army of approximately 5,000 men made its brutal points of war occupation quickly; after three months the Japanese Navy, of a smaller force size, replaced the Army and ruled until the American invasion and recapture in July, l9hh."" During the first half of the Japanese naval rule, the majority of the Guamanians worked on their ranches and stayed away from Agana. Some elected to work for the Japanese, and while payment was low they were paid a wage. For the most part, until January, l9hh, the subsistence economy met most of the local needs. Food production was sufficiently high to meet the Guamanian needs and a small portion of the Japanese needs."5 The Japanese administration established a school system for teaching the Japanese language and culture. Saipanese Chamorros were brought in to help in this educational effort, since the Japanese had ruled the Marianas since l9lh as a result of the League of Nations mandate. There was some resentment toward the Saipanese after the war by Guamanians as a result of this program. The last period of the Japanese occupation (January, 19AM, until the recapture by the American military) resulted in extreme measures of treatment for the Guamanians. People were drafted into the work force and put into concentration camps. Historian Carano describes the situation: tharano, 196A, pp. 273-277. "SCarano, 196A, pp. 177—178. 57 The kaikontai, an agricultural group, came to Guam early in l9hh. Its purpose was to provide food for thousands of returning [Japanese] army troops sent to defend the island [Guam] against American forces whose island-hopping campaign was bringing them ever nearer to Guam. Because the prosecu— tion of the war was more important than civil administration, almost every Japanese civilian employed by the minseibu [Japanese Navy Civilian Authority] was drafted into agricul— tural projects. Guamanian men, women, and children were forced to work in the fields. Schools were closed, and children under twelve years of age were sent home. If they were over twelve, they were made to work with the adults. All available hands were drafted into the fields. Only invalids and those gravely ill were spared. Post-World War 11 Changes The re—occupation of Guam by the United States meant a radical change for all segments of the Guam community. The subsistence agrarian system practically vanished as the Guamanians signed up for government jobs. Most of the new wage-earning jobs were with the U.S. military—-the Navy initially, and later the Air Force. The number of military personnel and the size of military land requirements remained high in the period of the middle and late l9hOs. There was no returning to the previous World War 11 period of a small- scale defense posture. In 19h8 about £2 percent of the total land area of the island was controlled by the U.S. Federal Government."7 After World War II, it was estimated that 15,000 arable acres of the island's 30,000 acres of total cropland were diverted from agricultural use to military reserves. The U.S. Navy in 1951 estimated that approximately 75 percent of the land regularly cultivated before World War II was still "6Carano, 196A, p. 287. "YCarano, 196A, p. 336. 58 open to non-military land use. Most of the 25 percent of former cultivated land seems to be in the Naval Station reservation in the Orote Peninsula area."8 Although much of the richer alluvial coastal plain lands remain privately owned, the U.S. and the Government of Guam land holdings remain extremely large (U.S. Government, 35 percent of total area; Government of Guam, 20 percent; private holdings, MS percent)."9 Besides the re-occupation of the Apra Harbor-Orote Peninsula area (Naval Station), the number of military facilities increased to include a naval air station (NAS), several communications installations (NCS), a naval magazine (Apra Heights), a central headquarters (Nimitz Hill), and an air force base (Andersen). In addition to the U.S. military population, another large American group appeared on Guam. An influx of white—collar workers and ' came to professionals from the U.S. mainland, called "statesiders,' work for the federal agencies and for the various departments of the Government of Guam. As a civilian government was established in l9h6, and in 1950 Guam's political status changed from a U.S. possession to an unincorporated territory of the United States, a rapid population growth occurred. The Organic Act made all people U.S. citizens who were of Chamorro heritage. Therefore, for most of the population, migration to and from Guam by citizens was feasible and became an "8William R. Tansill, "Guam and Its Administration," Public Affairs Bulletin No. 95 (Washington: Legislative Reference Service, 1951) pp. h3—A5. "9Department of Land Management, General Land Use Data and Trends (Agana: Department of Land Management, 1973) p. 2. 59 important factor in the overall development of the island. However, the Navy continued to exercise entry control for even U.S. citizens until 1962, and remained in economic control. For all practical purposes Guam was a U.S. military bastion until 1962. Some of the statesiders who migrated to Guam in the 19h5—l950 period became business leaders in the private economy which emerged in the 19608 and 19708. The recently defined view of the modern period, beginning in 1962, represents another transition on Guam. The civilian economic takeoff commenced when the naval security clearance was rescinded.SO Previously, all visitors, ships, and aircraft entering Guam, including those of U.S. origin, were screened by U.S. Naval Intelligence and processed according to their legal and bureaucratic procedures. The lifting of security clearance by President Kennedy, through executive order, allowed foreign investment to enter the Guam private sector and made possible development not directly dependent upon federal spending. Another event, perhaps even more important and yet interrelated, was the destructive typhoon of November 11, 1962. Seven ' and millions of persons were killed by the storm, called "Karen,' dollars worth of property were damaged or destroyed. The civilian economy was stimulated by the federal funds which poured in to reconstruct the outdated infrastructure of the island. Large amounts of capital improvement rehabilitation funds went towards the construc— tion of typhoon-proof structures such as schools and power and water 50Executive Order lthS, The White House, August 21, 1962; University of Guam, Micronesian Area Research Center, Vertical File. 60 facilities and repairs to the hospital. The infusion of $h5 million was approved by the U.S. Congress in 1963 to rebuild the island. An additional $30 million was appropriated in 1968 to continue this effort.51 Subsequent economic development of the civilian sector was rapid and at times uncontrolled. By the end of the 19608 a major tourist industry existed with the Japanese market serving as the origin of both investment in and visitors to Guam. However, the Guam economy (See Chapter V) continued to be supported by a limited-base, import—oriented economy which makes Guam extremely dependent upon the U.S. and Japanese economies. Therefore, external conditions such as inflation and energy scarcity resulted in a major recession in Guam in l97h and 1975. The rapid growth, or "boom" condition, of the economy of the late 19608 and early 19708 ended in the near collapse of the private construction and tourist industries. The global recession in the mid-19708 left Guam short of capital and funds. Foreclosures occurred in the housing market, business receipts fell, Government of Guam revenues leveled off, and several federal 52 funding programs stopped. 51James B. McDonald, Guam Annual Economic Review 1975 (Agana: Department of Commerce, 1976) p. 9. 52Guam Annual Economic Review, 1976, pp. 9-10; Haverlandt, 1975, pp. 116—117. Chapter IV. POPULATION, LAND USE, AND LAND TENURE This chapter provides a regional analysis of three important interrelated factors of Guam. The population is heterogeneous, providing diversity of land utilization and conditions of land owner— ship. Modern Guam demonstrates a continuation of the interplay of these factors as the island's development changes. The local Guamanians remain the largest identifiable group. They constitute more than half of the population today. During the historic period, as noted earlier, their proportions, even during their historic demise,constitutednearly 50 percent of the population under the Spanish. However, the American element, called "statesider," or hoale, which replaced the Spanish at the turn of the nineteenth century, now comprises about 25 percent of the population. The Filipino component of the population (about 20 percent) is as large as it was during the long tenure of the Spanish period. The remaining Asian element, while very diverse, is small today, and includes Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and Vietnamese. Also, the recent influx of Micronesians provides additional cultural variety to Guam's apparent international makeup. Owing to this diversity of the population, many problems exist. As the population expands, as it is doing, the need for control over the island's resource base increases. Measurement and analysis of land tenure and use follows the areal study of Guam's population. 61 62 Population Distribution Based on the 1977 data in Table 6, the density of the island is relatively high. (See Figure 5) The ratio of 578 people per square mile is comparable to many densely settled island countries of Europe and Asia. The population density of Guam is about the same as that of the United Kingdom (598) and Sri Lanka (516) and more than that of the Philippines (351), but less than that of Japan (758) and Taiwan (1.179).53 The population density of the northern half of the island is nearly 800 people per square mile. These density figures are well above the average density of the U.S., which is about 60 persons per square mile, while in the megalopolis of the northeastern U.S. there are overall urban—rural population densities approximating those of central—northern Guam Island. Guam's population is regional, being heavily concentrated in the central and northern parts of the island. Using the central dividing line of the Adelup Fault, which extends from Asan Village on the west coast through Agana Heights, crosses the narrow "waist" of the island, and ends on the east side at Yona Village, 75 percent of the population lives in the northern half of Guam. The only densely settled area in the southern half of the island is the Naval Station and the adjacent villages of Agat and Santa Rita, all south of Apra Harbor. S3Goode's World Atlas, lhth edition (Chicago: Ran McNally, l97h), p. 229. 63 mo psoapmmmom homewow noommmmmoo seems some .moemoo .soseo .m sesem “oomsom .8850 so sofipmdposam oompoasmom one 303m op popdaomm one mpmp mmma Q .mosdcoooam Hdompmflpmpm mSmsoo moadmom mo Mona map can .momswflw hampflafia pmom map 8H mofla mommmoQOflp mama one .mothOm mo hpoflsm> m Eomm oopwaommMpNo hHHmQOmsom one made HNmH paw SNmH m o.mI e.mm eso.em mme.mo mmo.mm oes.em emm.mmm memos m.mm e.mmm msm.m mam.m som.m mme.m II msompo m.mm m.mm mso.m 0mm.e oes.m mmo.m II nosmmemmm o.mm e.sm mmm.s smm.m mam.m mss.m II mmoemmopspm s.mm e.om mos.sm mmm.ss oom.mm mem.mm II msnmsmsoso m.oeI s.mHI mmm.mm ooo.mm emo.om mmm.mm oso.mm emmmm snnpmemz oemHImmoH oemmIommm ommm momma osme masom mesma moose omsspm omnmno pneumom 80flpmdsmom mmow one mSomw popooaom hm compmadgom 885w .mofififi Figure 5. Guam Island Population 1977 6h Figure 5 GUAM ISLAND POPULATION I977 Agana P. AG “A .— . ... --V/fl W“. HEIGHT. ONGHONG r‘ m “mm... . INAJANA . I .OROOT- '. ° HALAN PAGO NAVAL \\\\ .. TATION YONA . ‘ . \\ -pro Hugh” 0:0 e 00 0 I ’0' ANYA mu / 8 Novel Magnum .0 . 0.: j AGAT -.-::° 7' O TeIoIoIo . . q ’ J O Umatac K O I o ' \O Neill: K21. BASE MAP USGS m§\ BARRIGADA MRSEN AIR FORCE \\‘ NCS POPULATION DISTRIBUTION VILLAGE SIZE MIIIIory lelon (IS. 070) (007. .07) Lou Then 3. 000 ® 0 3.000' 6.000 ® 0 OVER 6,000 e REPRESENTS 25 PERSONS Aileln TMrewMeree 0 I 2 3 III“ SCALE 8. KARQLE, l977 65 For this area study, Guam is divided on a tri—regional basis: North, Central, and South Guam. These divisions delineate well— established territorial zones reflecting physiographic and population designations. The North region is the limestone plateau, and represents an area of recent settlement. It was once dominated by low tropical forests. The villages and other built—up areas of Dededo, Yigo, Santa Rosa, and Mataguac are post-World War II settlements, while Tamuning and Tumon are older settlements and were accessible from the Agana and the Central region. The Central region generally is an irregular area, topographically. Rocks are mixed; surfaces in the Barrigada, Mangilao, and Naval Air Station areas contrast with the steep dissection of the Agana, Chaot, and Pago River areas of the Central region. The smoother limestone surfaces of Barrigada and Mangilao extend into the argilla- ceous limestone found in this transition zone between the North's flat reef—limestone plateau and the conglomerate and andesitic surfaces which extend into the South region. The main urban places of the Central region are: Barrigada, Agana Heights, Sinajana, Mongmong—Toto— Maite, Chalan Pago—Ordot, and Yona. The South is largely a dissected volcanic upland with a low remnant edge of mountains paralleling the southwest coast. Narrow limestone deposits exist on the borders of the southeast coast. Most of the villages of the South are found along the coasts with the exceptions of Santa Rita and Talofofo. From the west around the periphery of the South region are the villages of Agat, Umatac, Merizo, and Inarajan. 66 Villages, districts, and selected place names are categorized by regional designation as follows: NORTH CENTRAL SOUTH Agafo Gumas Agana Agat Andersen Air Force Base Agana Heights Apra Heights (including Marbo) Asan Inarajan Dededo Barrigada Malojloj Naval Communication Chalan Pago—Ordot Merizo Station (Finegayan) Maina Santa Rita Santa Rosa Mangilao Talofofo Tamuning Mongmong—Toto—Maite Umatac Tumon Naval Air Station Yigo Naval Communication Station (Barrigada) Naval Station (Sumay) Piti Sinajana Ylig Yona Government Lands In terms of land tenure and use, we know that in pre—contact times the Chamorro population lived in coastal settlements and interior river locations. Apparently the Chamorros divided Guam into districts with several settlements to a district. The noble class ruled the best of the district lands and fishing areas; this group also controlled other important resources of their culture, including money, canoes, and trade of food and other materials. The occupancy patterns of this integrated system of farming, fishing, and trade lasted over 150 years, from the time of first contact with the Europeans in 1521 until the 16808. The Spanish brought an end to this system; they forced the Chamorros to leave their villages and farms to concentrate in a few villages ranging from Agana to Agat and Umatac on the 67 southwest coast of Guam; thus the population at that time was mainly distributed in the southern half of the island. However, by the 18705 nearly 85 percent of the population was located in the Agana area. The economy remained at a subsistence level for the Guamanians and each family had its rancho (farm). Most of the land was privately owned. The Spanish government owned about 25 percent of the island and these lands were considered less desirable owing to their inaccessible location. These so—called crown lands were located in the northern forested areas and in the grazing areas of the southern interior. When America took possession of Guam in 1898 the Spanish crown lands became the property of the federal government. By the end of World War II the proportion of land under federal and U.S. Navy control had grown to M2 percent of the island, and land held by Guamanians approximated one third, or seventy square miles. It was estimated that by lth approximately 15,000-17,000 acres were under tree and crop cultivation, 1,500 head of cattle were pastured, and 2,h50 families derived their living directly from agricultural activities. Most of the population lived in Central Guam near Apra Harbor and Agana. The remainder lived in scattered villages in South Guam, with a few families in the northern plateau area; however, no permanent villages existed in North Guam at this time. Carano reported that in general land use terms 2h.5 percent was cropland, 22.5 percent was forest- woodland, MO percent was pasture and meadow, and 13 percent was devoted 51+ to all other uses combined. 5hCarano, 196M, pp. 335—338. 68 By the time of the passage of the Guam Organic Act in 1950, the major economic transformation of the modern era had begun. The war and the bombardment of the July, 19kb, invasion of Guam by U.S. military forces resulted in tremendous denudation and depletion of the physical environment. Farming showed a rapid decline by 19h9. In that year about 1,700 acres were tilled for field crops, rice and copra were no longer produced, and the food supply was dependent on imports. Military jobs were plentiful, wages were high, and there was an atmosphere of materialism that existed among Guamanians that resulted in a reluctance to return to farming. When the Government of Guam came into existence, large amounts of land previously controlled by the U.S. Navy became public lands. Various official estimates considered between 18 and 30 percent of the island as in the public domain. (See Figure 6) These lands are distributed in an uneven way with obvious concentrations in the North and South regions of Guam. Numerous scattered public lands are found in the Central region of the island. However, private land is most concentrated in the Central and South regions with numerous sections of private parcels in the North. In the last ten years the proportion of private holdings has grown through various means, including the purchase of excess government lands, land grants, and litigation.55 While the federal and local government agencies have measured the island over the years, there is no definitive source for the exact figures on land ownership among the three major ownership categories, 55Jane Jennison—Nolan, "Land Use on Guam," Chapter I., Social Baseline Study for the Island of Guam, University of Guam (Agana: Micronesian Area Research Center, 1976) pp. lh—l6. Figure 6. Guam Island Land Ownership 1977 69 Harm”. mmmmm ccccc .smwfiwm mflflfla ,Aflaa//Q 00000000000 A08. LIM P.R. flaw . A GUAM ISLAND LAND OWNERSHIP 1977 ‘~ / W .461" ”/ %W 7O i.e., private, Government of Guam, and the U.S. Federal Government. (See Table 7) The data sources vary considerably; however, the estimates in Table 7 are the Department of Land Management figures on the number of acres for each ownership category and represent the best breakdown available. According to Jennison-Nolan there are reasons for the discrepancies. "Land records are obsolete, inaccurate, and incomplete. Outdated base maps compound the problem. Moreover, 17 percent of the public domain lands have neither been surveyed nor registered as of April, 1976, and half of the public domain lands that have been surveyed as of the same date have not been registered."56 Private Holdings In 197A, the Stanford Research Institute reported that 26.A percent of all private land was owned by off-island residents including foreign investors. Thus at least 25.22 square miles of the island's privately—owned land is presently alienated from local residents of Guam. However, the Stanford study did not distinguish who the local residents were by ethnic grouping. Therefore, its definition of "Guamanian" included any person born on Guam, and any resident who possessed U.S. citizenship and had resided on Guam at least five years. Since 55 percent of the entire island is government controlled land, and at least 26.h percent of the private land sector or about 12 percent of the total is off—island controlled (according to the Stanford study), over two thirds of the entire island is outside the control of local Guamanians. 56Jennison—Nolan, 1976, p. 17. 71 .NIH .mm Amwmfi .honao>oz .Edsw mo Pawsdho>ow "mqwm.ma Edda mo Pumadhm>ow proa Hm.m stave 0:.m oms was psosmoao>ou mhdpsm Hm.: mwmsm QOHpm>Momsoo Hm.mm momma Hwhmcwm .m.b Hdpoa ms.a aaa .amaz .Aoflnmqu mm.mm mmcfieaos sampfiaflz aspos no a msma ”gunmsmnsO snag saga .s ofipwa 71 .NIH .mm Ampma .Hopam>oz “Edsw go pamfidpm>oo Handwflmm proe hwa.m: ooo.>m HN.QH Bozo Mo psmsshm>ow Hmpoe mmm.mH ooanw Hm.m honpo mam.om oooama m:.m own was psosgoam>m© whopsm mam.m oomnm Hm.: momma QOpr>somsoo mmm.ms smm.w: Hm.mm magma augmema .m.: proa mam.m smm.m ms.a «am .«maz .AounmpuH m>®.H~ oooom: mm.mm mwauaon hhwpwaflz mafia: 0965mm mmso< Hmpoa Mo & haowmpwo mfiflmhonzo mama "mfismsmsso eqmq ease .s magma 72 Off—island private land control is relatively high in the South region, especially in its northern and Central portion, and in the districts of Inarajan and Talofofo; in the Central region along its southern boundary, especially in the Yona, Mangilao, and Santa Rita districts; and in areas of North Guam such as Dededo (especially Machanao) and Yigo.57 Further, the Stanford study reports that in the early 1970s local residents owned 90 percent or more of the private property in Sinajana and Agana, 8h percent in Barrigada, 80 percent in Piti, and 7h percent in Asan, all in the Central region. In the South region they own 82 percent in Merizo, 81 percent in Yona, 78 percent in Umatac, 70 percent in Agat, 69 percent in Talofofo, and 51 percent in Inarajan.58 Owing to the political relationship of Guam and the United States, one important aspect of population and land ownership involves immigration and naturalization. Guam, as a U.S. territory, qualifies as a port of entry for foreign immigration into the United States. According to Table 8, a significant number of naturalized citizens enter the U.S. by way of Guam. Since 1952 the U.S. Office of Immigra- tion and Naturalization has operated in Guam with more than 9,267 naturalized persons receiving U.S. citizenship. 57A Study and Review of Laws Pertaining to Alien Investment on Guam, Volume I (Menlo Park: Stanford Research Institute, 197A) pp. IV- 19-26, and Exhibit A. 58 Stanford Research Institute, 197A, pp. IV—20. Table 8. Naturalized Persons in Guam by Year Number of Guam Number of All Year Naturalizations Naturalizations in U.S. 1975 1,130 1h1.537 197A 1,0h0 131,655 1973 999 120,7u0 1972 789 116,215 1971 567 108,h07 1970 556 110,399 1969 392 98,709 1968 M31 102,726 1967 33 10h,902 1966 272 103,059 1965 297 10u,299 196M uu3 112,23h 1963 A13 12h,178 1962 7A2 127,307 1961 181 132,h50 1960 185 119,hh2 1959 193 103,931 1958 2 119,866 1957 161 138,0h3 1956 186 1h5,885 1955 155 209,526 195A 18 117,831 1953 80 92,051 1952 2 88,655 1951 -— 5h,716 Source: Immigration and Naturalization Service, Annual Report, in Table A2 and since 1961 Table h2A, (Washington: Department of Justice, 1951 through 1975). 7h Most of these persons originate from the Philippines; from 1961 through 1975, 70.8 percent of the naturalizations were of Filipino origin. In recent years, Taiwan Chinese are the second largest category after the Philippines for place of origin, with Korean and Japanese close behind in absolute numbers. Apart from the actual number of persons naturalized in Guam, the social and economic impacts of those choosing local residency for any length of time is difficult to determine. Little data exists, and therefore extensive measurement and analysis remains to be completed on those naturalized who stay. However, the author's fieldwork conducted in 197M revealed that seven of the 100 farmers interviewed were oriental in origin; three owned their own land, and four leased their farms. The seven controlled a combined total of approximately thirty-two acres. While the Asian agricultural impact is small, land ownership in general is significant as pointed out by the Stanford study. Most of the Asian development so far has focused on tourism and other commercial land use. Land Taxes Land taxation in its present structure, was first introduced in the early 1950s, shortly after the establishment of the Guam Legislature, following the Organic Act. The present general property tax system is based on the ad valorem concept with a yearly charge of the assessed property value. Under this system, each individual property has two assessments; the first measures the actual land, and the second if applicable, evaluates the buildings, homes, and other 75 real estate appendages as a separate property evaluation for assessment purposes. Therefore, the individual tax bill computation on land is % of 1 percent of the taxable portion of the assessed land value plus a full 1 percent on the taxable portion of the assessed worth of the structures. For the most part, the farmer operating a given amount of agricultural land without permanent buildings pays one—half of one percent on 35 percent of the assessed land value. The Guam property tax assessment structure operates with two major criterion, land use and location. Land assessed for tax purposes regarding usage is classified in the following rank order (highest to lowest in value): Zones Type Commercial C Industrial M2 Light Industrial MI Multiple Dwelling R2 Single Family Dwelling RI Rural A In theory, all properties in Guam are by statute assessed at a portion of their full market value, and all properties should be reassessed at frequent intervals. These rules in practice are legis— latively adjusted and changed from time to time. For example, in 1977, an island—wide reevaluation of property market values was conducted. As the 1977 tax bills began reaching the 1500 some odd taxpayers who owned approximately 23,000 parcels of land (including about 17,000 buildings), taxpayer objections apparently forced the Guam Legislature to pass immediate legislation delaying the enforcement of the new assessments. Therefore, the 1972 bench mark land values, a six-year old property tax evaluation remained in effect for the 1977 tax year. According to officials in the Department of Revenue and 76 Taxation, the new 1977 evaluation reported a total property value for Guam of $2 billion. The aggregate tax bill due under the new evalua- tion was $A million; potentially this constitutes a substantial increase over the 1976 island pronerty tax bill (over $2 million). However, land taxes provide a relatively small share of the Government of Guam's revenue base fluctuating between one and two percent during the early 1970s. Presently, the lowest assessed land includes all property zoned as rural; in Guam for property taxation purposes this amounts to $1.A2 per acre per year for some agricultural areas in the South. However, farmland in close proximity to urban areas in the Central and North regions of the island are taxed at a minimum of $3.5A per acre annually, and in other instances they amount to $5.30. Comparative data on farm real estate taxation reveals that Guam's taxes on agricultural land is relatively high. The average tax state-wide in Hawaii for 1976 according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, shows a levy of $2.67 per acre. Assuming that the Guam average for agricultural land per acre in 1975 to be $3.00, twenty-nine states in the same year taxed their agricultural real estate at a lessor per acre rate. To insure a progressive agricultural develop- ment, Guam needs a restructuring of the present tax system. Chapter V. THE ECONOMY OF GUAM The relationship between the general economy of Guam and the U.S. military posture in the Pacific Far East is of profound impor- tance. Following the major foreign policy changes in Indochina during 1973 and 197A, serious repercussions were felt. Declines occurred in land values, job opportunity, and available capital for investment. The lucrative real estate market collapsed. Military construction nearly terminated, military personnel halved, military spending off the bases decreased, etc., all this helped slow the civilian economy. In addition to the American—Vietnamese war ending, which resulted in a significant downturn for Guam, the Middle East oil price increases had their own impact. While the federal government absorbed the initial rise of oil per barrel to Guam, the Japanese-Guam economic connection deteriorated. The large Japanese investments in land in general, and specifically in tourism, fell off. Japanese visitors to Guam decreased; thus construction projects related to the visitor industry ceased. Moreover, during the months after those events, unemployment compensation and food stamp distribution existed in significant amounts. This type of federal involvement in welfare programs was new for Guam. In addition to the economic recession of 1975, and infusion of addi— tional federally funded programs, in May, 1976, a major typhoon struck Guam. Ironically, the large—scale disaster relief monies provided the turnaround stimulus to Guam's economy. A stabilized world economy, and 77 78 the continuation of large federal expenditures has produced a cautious optimism. However, the widespread reliance on federal spending in Guam as a long range growth view is limited at best. What is needed now is a development plan that fully utilizes the island's resources and position in the Western Pacific. Regional Outlook Of all Guam Island's goegraphical particulars, it is the relative location that gives it considerable international and national importance. (See Figures 1 & 2) How far away Hawaii and Japan are in 3= units of actual distance is less important than how close they are in relative distance. The interrelationships of political, economic, and military factors, viz. the position of Guam with respect to the Far East, explains the island's recent development and rise to importance as America's "westernmost" territorial possession. Guam's global place is of significance today because it is American territory located in the central-western Pacific. The island is located some 3,6hh miles west of Honolulu, Hawaii, and 1,500 miles south—southeast of Tokyo, Japan. Its land size is approximately 21h square miles, or about one half the size of Hong Kong. This makes it the largest land area in Micronesia. There are several island groups and individual islands in Micronesia, or "tiny islandsf'whose proposed name was submitted by Domeny de Rienzi to the Societe de Geographie de Paris in 1931. The island groups include: Caroline Islands, numbering 957 islands, islets, and reefs, totaling h6l.hhl sq. miles; Mariana Islands, numbering 21 islands, islets, and reefs, totaling l8h.508 sq. miles, fi‘ "“ ' ' ' " ' ‘> L ...!- 79 excluding 2lh sq. miles of Guam Island which is not part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; Marshall Islands, numbering 1,225 islands, islets, and reefs, totaling 69.8A sq. miles; Gilbert Islands (a British Crown Colony), numbering 16 main islands, totaling llh.l2 sq. miles, and Ocean Island (a United Kingdom dependency), totaling 2.3 sq. miles; Nauru Island (an independent republic formerly Australian), totaling 8.2 sq. miles. With Guam's 21h sq. miles, this is a total of 1,05h.h09 sq. miles. Guam and the Trust Territory account for 929.789 sq. miles or about 88 percent of the total land area of Micronesia.59 Guam's advantage of location with respect to Micronesia and East Asia provides the backdrop for development. As the Japan-American economies continue to be intertwined, Guam may well take the initiative for competitive advantages. According to recent trade data, U.S. trade with Guam's neighbors, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Singapore, is rising. The Pacific-Asian countries represent a major trade block for the United States. While political stability, abundant labor supply, and vast resources are available to the U.S. economy from these countries, a significant shift from being a supply source of raw materials to a manufacturing region has taken place in the Pacific—Asian countries since the 19605. There is little doubt that Guam can strengthen these opportunities of 59Edwin H. Bryan, Jr., Guide to Place Names in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, Pacific Scientific Information Center (Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum, 1971); Otis Freeman, editor, The Geographygof the Pacific (New York: Wiley, 1951) pp. 208, 237-238, and 273—27h; and Gina Douglas, "Draft Check List of the Pacific Oceanic Islands," Micronesica, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Agana: University of Guam, 1969) pp. 387-hlh. 80 neighborhood location. That Guam is a tourist destination for Asians is only one part of development. In a limited way, Guam is serving as a U.S. center for international services in education, transportation, communications, corporate finance, and other related businesses. American Military Development The dominant American presence in the Pacific explains Guam's overall economic growth since the 19AOs. American interest in the Pacific as a significant geopolitical area dates back to the mid— nineteenth century, but World War II precipitated the large-scale U.S. involvement in the Far East and Pacific regions. Much of the U.S. military administration and strike forces for the Central Pacific are centered in Guam. (See Figures 1 & 2, especially 7) In fact, it was from the Strategic Air Command airbase in Guam in mid—1965 that sustained air bombing of North Vietnam first began. The presence of the armed forces is easily discernible on the island; the military reservations cover over one third of the total land area, and military personnel and their dependents numbered 28,181 in 1971 and 15,970 in 1977. (See Tables 5 & 9) Although this figure is reduced from a previous high of A2,000 in 196860, in 1975 the military payroll amounted to about $97 million, with over 6,000 civilian jobs providing another payroll of $60 million. The Government of Guam realized about $18 million in income tax revenues from these payrolls. 0Edwin L. Carey, editor, Guam 1970: An Economy in Transition (Agana: Department of Commerce, 1969) p. 6. Figure 7. Western Pacific Military Li—A‘.-..'_.— -‘ 81 .8. ...! ska. .uadcs. .0 ,- r502. 823m. .1. ,. Emcee . . w «extan. m. I . . . .u z . 40:4 0 M 0min: ... 983k... .1.th . . 324.5. .. a m 4.355.: . .22.... u‘ "r 4 .423 {. ___._ «Q . . mozja. . 0 =23: ....... .. . \ find ....i. \.. o. I .o \ \ 15.-85' . A k .. . M —‘ J .11 \ «82.39 ( 7 my . \ ... 255»: (2.20 7| w >\ V M Q 0 .1 U \K x U ‘l F .2. 353 69).! a: 3:2 It. :1 an: woz<4w_ 03:05. of *0 rmotmmwh hwnxh 05 5 mytéodu >¢dz Howmmfiaoo mmw .m .mmma .powapmp< Hwoflpmflpmpm ”moohdom mmm.mam amm.om mmm.mm mmw.mm mam.em mama mma.mwa 00m.mm www.mw ooo.wa mam.aa aama mmw.aea amo.ma ama.ma aam.ma mam.mm mama mmm.maa mma.om osm.mm mam.mm eoa.em mama omm.maa amm.am wmm.ma mam.am oam.»m aama pom.mma mom.ma mwm.ow amm.oa meo.mm oama mmm.maa smm.mm mmm.ma aom.mm maw.mm mmma aoa.ama waa.mm mam.aa mmm.mm moo.am mmma mom.mma mmo.ma amm mam.am aam.mm amma wma.aoa aaa.mm mmm.@ mma.mm mem.am mmma ama.»m ewa.mm mem.m o-.em mmm.mm mwma www.mm I- gam.ma aae.am www.mm amma composapmcoo mmm mmm ammw agree Aware atepaaaz eeaaa>ao maepaaaz aeemaa Amadaaow yo mpndmsoflp QHV ”meaepaeeemxm maepaaaz .oa waste marmalamma l, 86 Table 11. GOVERNMENT OF GUAM STATEMENT OF REVENUE: 1975 Class of Revenue 1975 I. General Fund Taxes: Income Taxes ......................... $ 51,183,228 Gross Receipts ....................... 21,963,212 Alcohol Beverage ..................... 1,033,88h Tobacco .............................. 65h,6ll Excise and Admission ................. 33h,629 Vehicle Transfer ..................... 281,5h5 Use Tax .............................. 66h,5h8 Real Property ........................ 762,h90 Others, Documentary Tax .............. 1952309 Sub—Total ....................... $ 77,073,u56 Licensing and Permits ........................ 511,639 Fines and Forfeitures ........................ 380,h89 Use of Money and Property .................... 1,026,925 Revenue from Other Agencies Income Tax from U.S. Agencies ........ l6,8hh,339 Immigration fees ..................... 120,96h Revenue from Current Services General Government ................... 119,01h Public Safety ........................ 56,000 Public Works ......................... 29,056 Hospital ............................. A,h26,9h9 Public Health and Social Services .... 3h,738 University of Guam ................... A56,158 Public Library ....................... 2,888 Agriculture .......................... 7A,678 Commerce ............................. 5,205 Others Other Local Revenue .................. 1,305,396 Federal Grants-in—Aid ................ lh,822,662 Sub-Total ....................... $ h0,217,100 TOTAL ....................... $117,290,556 II. Special Funds Territorial Highway Fund ..................... $ 8,A56,2l3 Tourist Attraction Fund ...................... 693,789 Economic Development Fund .................... l,9l8,hl8 Housing Revolving Fund ....................... 936,609 TOTAL ....................... $ 12,005,029 87 Table 11. Continued Class of Revenue 1975 III. Semiautonomous and Autonomous Agencies Guam Airport Authority ..................... $ 1,005,768 Public Utility Agency ...................... 3,096,060 Guam Telephone Authority ................... h,729,315 Commercial Port ............................ 5,878,2h9 Guam Power Authority ....................... 25,809,02h Guam Housing and Urban Renewal ............. 3,817,500 Guam Economic Development Authority ........ 176,926 Guam Housing Corporation ................... h67,018 TOTAL .......................... $ Ah,979,860 IV. Capital Projects Federal Grants ............................. $ A,202,329 Other Funds ................................ 2,606,900 TOTAL .......................... $ 6,809,229 GRAND-TOTAL .................... $181,08A,67A Source: Statistical Abstract, 1976, pp. 62 & 63. 88 The Government of Guam is a large bureaucracy consisting of some 9,016 employees in 1975; therefore, its economic importance as an employer, especially for Guamanians, is significant. Out of a total of 3A,938 persons employed on the island in 1975, A5 percent (15,697) were employed by government. The Government of Guam in that year employed 25.8 percent (9,016) of the work force, and the federal government employed 6,681 civilians, or 19.1 percent. While the Government of Guam in 1975 showed approximately $181 million in revenue, it spent $187,351,167 that year. The largest class of expenditure was education at $51,132,951. The 1975-1976 school year found public school enrollment at 28,209, with the University of Guam's total academic enrollment at 3,862. Some of the government educational funding supports the private school sector (K-l2 grades); there were h,592 students who attended private schools on the island. This means that the island's population of 103,010 supported some 36,663 students during the 1975—1976 school year. Approximately 35.6 percent of the Guam population is supported by public funding of education at an overall average of $1,395 Per student. Other Government of Guam expenditures include the Department of Public Health and Social Services, $15.8 million; Public Safety (Police Force), $10.6 million; and transportation and economic development, $6.2 and $h.5 million, respectively. Community services, environmental protection, recreation, and general government-wide support totaled 6L'Statistical Abstract, 1976, pp. A3-A6. 89 another $18 million for a general fund total of about $105 million. Other Government of Guam agencies which are autonomous and self— supporting for the most part provide the balance of the money flow set out in Table 11. With respect to agricultural interests, several Government of Guam programs affect the island's farm operators. One of the most important is the gross receipts business tax; from its incipience in the early 19608, agriculturalists were exempted. Therefore, the individual farm producer who markets local produce is excused from this government business tax. However, certain horticultural estab— lishments, i.e., plant nurseries, and agricultural services, i.e., farm machinery, are not excluded. Altogether these agri—businesses provided slightly over $1 million of the 1975 gross receipts revenues, while the producers themselves paid none. Another significant governmental subsidy for farmers involves the Government of Guam's Department of Agriculture. This agency during the 19708 expended annually about $1 million for plant and animal development, forestry and soil conservation programs, and fish and wildlife research and extension projects. According to Department of Agriculture officials during fiscal 1977 the Department of Agriculture received a legislative budget of $1,09h,627, and employed seventy—eight technical and professional personnel. Agriculture Agricultural development in any society is a response to many cultural and technological factors. Guam's particular agricultural situation is the product of several political—historical influences. ;~._’, g 90 Generally, the clash has centered on the concerns of the American commercial approach to land ownership (tenure) and exploitation, and the deeply entrenched subsistence practices of Guamanian culture. Prior to World War II subsistence horticulture was an entrenched feature in the landscape. Many Guamanian families owned two units of land: a village house where most of the family resided most of the time, and a simple dwelling on an agricultural parcel. A dualistic pattern of urban and rural living was characteristic, with some people commuting over long distances between the ranch, or lanchon and the village home, often on a daily basis. Often a division of time occurred, with some family members (generally adult males) living on the farm during the week and residing in the village during the weekend. According to Bowers, in 1990, out of a total population of 22,290, though 2,812 persons were listed as farmers, it is clear that most people were growing most of their own food. In 1939, some A,OOO acres were cropped, and in the same year approximately 12,000 acres of coconut palm forest existed with 2,500 tons of copra harvested. However, since 19h6, no copra has been harvested for commercial purposes.65 By 1950 the number of Guam farmers had declined to 1,189.66 65Bowers, Neal, M., "The Mariana, Volcano, and Bonin Islands," Otis W. Freeman (ed.), Geography of the Pacific (New York: Wiley, 1951) pp. 223-22A. 66Johnson, Walter D. and Carey, Edwin L., Guam 1969: A Developing Pacific Economy (Agana: Guam Technical Services, 1970) p. 30. 91 In addition to subsistence gardening for the family food supply and supplementing their incomes with copra production, the Guamanians also fished for the family's food. However, the economy changed so drastically after World War II (coincident with the military buildup of the island) that even with the large agricultural extension service, a form of direct subsidy to the local farmers, the agricul- tural segment of the economy continued to decline in the 19505 and 19605. In fact, the turnabout from subsistence farming to wage-earning became so pronounced that it was said in the mid—19605 that there were more full-time technical and professional employees working for the Government of Guam's Department of Agriculture than there were actual island farmers. In 1973-7A, an intensive field investigation was conducted among the farm-rural community of Guam. The purpose was to empirically assess the agricultural picture of modern Guam. This fieldwork revealed several impressions reported at length in this analysis. These people interviewed demonstrated a tremendous determination to maintain their agricultural activities, to expand their individual operations when feasible, to teach any younger people who were willing to stay on the farms, and to learn new agricultural methods and techniques. While farmers frequently criticized the Department of Agriculture and the Public Utility Agency of Guam leadership in general, they perceptively faulted an unfair allocation of the island's resource distribution as the basic reason for the magnitude of the historical decline of Guam agriculture. 92 The survey also revealed the production capabilities of the island. For example, it was found that: l) the 100 farmers surveyed (or 39.1 percent of the population of 256 practicing farmers) operated 66h.5 acres of land which included field and tree crops and pasture; 2) the 156 farmers not covered in this survey, or 60.9 percent, operated another 1,035 acres for a total projected acreage of 1,699.5; 3) similar potentially arable land exists; two independent studies show, for the South region alone, acreages of 5,197 and 9,791 are suitable for (but presently unused) agricultural 1ands;67 A) local agricultural production in 197A accounted for approximately 26 percent of the food requirements of the island's population. (See Table 12. Note: food data in this table excluded certain foods consumed in Guam, e.g., milk and rice.) The sections that follow describe the basic findings of that agricultural survey. Each question is evaluated by analyzing the aggregate responses. Personal and Social Background Most of the farmers surveyed were between A0 and 60 years of age. There were 6 farmers over 65 years old, and 6 under 35. There were 80 who are Guamanian by birth; half were born in Agana and half in the South region; 9 farmers interviewed were born in the United States, 7 were oriental in origin, and 2 were Micronesians. In two cases no 67Gillham, Koebig, and Koebig, Inc., Irrigation Feasibility Study (Agana: Department of Agriculture, 1973); Bureau of Planning, Master Plan unpublished (Agana: 1977). 93 .zmlmm .mg Aconmflapsmqs “mama .smso mo mpampm>asbv wamOQOpowz was smsw :fl pavemoam>mm HwMSpHSOHsm< SH mwcmae .oampsd .B.> Ampfian .B.b .cwgmmwmdz .m nonmhhmsw coma .m.3 ”momsom ooa mma.osm.aaa as mmm.mmm.oaa mm smm.mam.ma ooa mmo.mmm.m mm omm.oas.m m mmo.am seem ooa oao.mmm.a mm oao.aoa.a aa ooo.ama swam Bursa ooa mmm.omm.a mm mmm.mma.a m oom.aoa asuasoa ooa amm.mmm.m ms amm.mmm.a mm oom.mmm Atom ooa mmm.moa.m as oma.aom.m mm mmo.mms nmapsanmn> a npassa ooa omm.oam.m aa mmm.smm mm aom.mmm.a swam R mamaaom & mamaaom & mamaaom Am+asb ”mamm< ”mmsSpflwsomxm Spam Hasssa .MH OHQwB 107 money, an average of $2,167, for hired workers). The next highest item of farm expenses was feed, especially feed for hogs and chickens. The average farm, with 60 of 100 farmersreporting,annually expended $32A.A7 for feed. Though 23 farms were not electrified, electric costs were the third highest expense at $2A7.7A per farm. Animal breeding was the fourth highest expenditure with an average annual expenditure of $218.68. Several Guam farmers stated that they would not pay for these services; they indicated that they have established some sort of an exchange system for livestock stud service among a small group of farmers who share their breeding stock. Improvements Water works consistently showed its importance in Guam's agriculture with 52 percent of the farmers adding various forms of water works to their farms. In answer to the question "Do you have any tanks, ponds, barrels, or water reservoirs on your farm?", 25 said yes, with 15 farmers indicating more than 2 of the above facilities. Drainage facilities were installed on 12 percent of the farms; 9 farmers said they terraced on sloped land; 69 percent of the farmers said they rotate their crops seasonally and/or yearly. Regarding the question concerning regular fertilization of their farm fields, 72 percent of the farmers said they did add ferti— lizers with 8 individual farmers fertilizing weekly, 29 monthly, and 9 yearly. In response to the query, do you fertilize by using: only manures, 18 said yes; only chemicals, 25 indicated yes; and both manures and chemical fertilizers, 36 replied yes. In response to the question on the annual quantity of fertilizer added to their soil, A5 .. ....- 108 farmers responded; the average amount these farmers put into their operations was 78A pounds of both chemical and organic fertilizers each year. Credit ‘ There is little indebtedness involved in Guam agriculture. There were only 12 mortgates, 16 long term farm loans, 10 short-term (yearly) operational loans; 13 farmers said they received financial aid from government agencies, mainly the Guam Economic Development Authority. In answer to the question "How much is your overall farm debt at this time?", 33 said up to $1,000, 9 indicated their debt was in the $1,001 to $5,000 category, and only A said they were in debt between $5,001 to $20,000 (5A NAs). Role of Government Of the 100 farmers interviewed, 36 were members of one of the four or five agricultural organizations on the island. Twenty—seven were members of the Guam Farmer's Association which is partly subsi— dized by the Government of Guam. The GFA is primarily a marketing cooperative, and serves the farmers by guaranteeing a market outlet for their produce. The organization also maintains a delivery truck, and provides farm—to—market produce delivery for the farmer—members. Fifty—five responded affirmatively to the question "Does the Department of Agriculture offer any assistance to you and your operation?" They were then asked to respond yes or no to the following list of types of assistance offered (the affirmative responses are indicated): 109 Financial aid 6 Technical knowledge 28 Equipment loans 25 Seed and plant aid 28 Training and education 16 Crop and animal subsidies 11 Other assistance 9 Summary The ground level farm survey revealed a surprisingly larger number of operators than expected and previously reported. However, the number of active farmers (256) was small, with 37 percent of those defined as full—time operators. In addition, this number accounted for no more than 1 percent of the island's civilian work force. Half of the operators lived on their farms; the majority were middle-aged and received significant proportions of their individual income from non- farm sources. The income dollar value of the farmers' combined crop production was found to be three to four times more than the earned income reported owing to the farmers' family consumption. The operator and family members simply consume their own produce before it enters the market place. The size and amounts of land utilized by the operators revealed that individual farms were relatively small. The group data average of the total individual farm sizes was just over 6.5 acres; however, the median farm size fell between 3 and A acres. Morever, the average tilled or field cropped portion of the average farm was 3.6 acres with a median of 1-2 acres. In other words, the aggregate averages were found to be higher than the medians for the typical total land size of the farms as well as for specific farm land uses. For example, on the average farm tree crops occupied exactly twice the space devoted to 110 field crops, but again the data was grouped revealing that on the median Guam farm both field and tree crops occupied about the same proportion of the whole farm. The site locations of all individual agricultural operations showed that 80 percent of the farmers were Guamanian, and that two thirds of the farmers owned their own land, or that it was part of the family holdings; the majority of operators acquired their lands through inheritance and individual purchases. Thus, the identification of farms and farmers regarding land tenure aspects shows that alienation of land so far is less among the agricultural community than for other land use sectors, i.e. commercial holdings. Coastal lowlands and other accessible shoreline areas were found to possess few farm locations. Military, commercial, residen— tial, and recreational land uses prevailed in the coastal regions. The farm survey distribution found on Figure 8 locates 100 individual agricultural operations (farms). A majority of the island's farms are located in the North and Central regions on limestone plateau surfaces. Unlike most of the South farms, the agricultural operations in the North and Central regions exist near relatively densely popu- lated areas. Another distributional feature shows a dispersed pattern of farms in the North, quite well defined in the less populated areas of the Dededo district. However, the South region was found to include the largest number of farms in the survey by region, but containing a sharp distinction regarding site physiography. In the South region from Agat to Merizo farms were primarily located on coastal plains and 111 in coastal river valleys. However, in contrast, in the southeast from Inarajan to Yona, 85 percent of the South region farms were found clustered on volcanic plateau surfaces. Further, it was revealed that the majority of Guam farmers operate on seasonal cycles; they irrigate their fields at least half the year; and nearly 75 percent regularly fertilize their fields. Most farm labor derives from the owner/operator and his family members. However, when additional labor is required, labor expenditures rank first on the average Guam farm. Indebtedness exists for only a minority of farmers; farm organizations are reasonably active among the agriculturists, and Government involvement is high. It was found that water availability for increased agricultural development poses a serious problem to the island. Present allocation of water provides domestic and urban users first priority. The correspondence of the distribution of population and consumption leaves the rural areas lacking a water supply necessary for annual multi-crop field production. The effect of not having increased water pressure and adequate quantities of water daily and hourly flowing from water lines in the agricultural areas is tantamount to a no—growth agricul— tural policy. The farmers surveyed, and those attending public meetings dealing with water problems, indicated that field irrigation is essential to their operations. They consistently pointed out the failure of public utility agencies to provide necessary rural coverage for their individual farm needs. During severe drought conditions many parts of the island experience public water supplies being terminated 112 for daily periods. Water pressure is non—existent for many rural areas. For the southern region as a whole and specifically the two villages of Umatac and Merizo, insufficient water infrastructure means perennial lack of potable water. The situation is indefensible and irrational not only in economic terms but for quality health standards. The water problem is responsible for a continual lag in agricultural development. Tourism Guam as a tourist destination had its start with the opening of the airline route between Japan and Guam in May, 1967. Tourist arrivals increased from that time at an annual rate of over 100 percent until 1973. Since then the tourist industry in Guam has leveled off with 237,000 visitors being accommodated in 1975. (See Tables 1A & 15) The location of tourism in Guam rests on several influencing factors. The most important are the physical features of the land— scape. The combination of sun, seascapes, and the marine ecology of the island provides an attractive environment. Moreover, the develop— ment of tourism in Guam and Micronesia derives from the existence of an urbanized—industrial Japan on the north, and of the relatively underdeveloped islands possessing a warm, sunny climate to the south. Another factor involves the establishment of cheap air transportation from Japanese destinations to Guam and Saipan. To some extent the more social and cultural interests on the part of the Japanese for opportunities to come in contact with a foreign American—Guamanian frontier provides other influencing reasons. Certainly the availabi- lity of a Pacific island culture, a chance to purchase U.S. goods, and 113 Table 1A. Tourists and Other Visitors To Guam (1967—1975) Returning Year Tourist Intended Residents Total Arrivals and Other Visitors1 1967 3,500 1,32A A,82A 1968 15,082 2,918 18,000 1969 30,810 27,A55 58,265 1970 50,500 2A,5OO 75,000 1971 8A,885 3A,289 119,17A 1972 139,883 A5,516 185,399 1973 18A,82A 55,520 2AO,3AA 197A2 233,099 27,A69 260.568 1975 208,982 28,018 237,000 lGovernment statistics include returning residents and intended resi- dents among visitor totals; other types of visitors are not defined. Tourist arrivals have been considered the most significant data and these are used throughout the study. 2Data based on first 6 months of 1975. Source: Statistical Abstract, 1976, p. 86. 11A Table 15. Visitor Arrivals In Guam According To Purpose Of Trip (1967—1975) Year Business Pleasure Other Total 1967 99 A,28A 117 A,500 1968 725 15,082 2,193 18,000 1969 1A,26A 30,810 13,191 58,265 1970 10,530 AA,580 16,611 73,721 1971 13,325 8A,885 20,96A 119,17A 1972 21,51A 139,823 2A,O52 185,399 1973 25,622 187,A71 28,053 2A1,1A6 197A 12,A6O 233,891 1A,217 260,568 1975 —— —— (estimate) 237,000 Source: Statistical Abstract, 1976 p. 85. 115 a host of "less desirable" features such as prostitution, gambling, and drinking all combine to offer a variety of supplemental activities for the tourists. About two thirds of all tourists coming to Guam are Japanese. (See Table 16) The popular opinion held by the community is that the main category of Japanese visitors is honeymoon couples. However, a study in July, 197A, showed that 68 percent of all visitors were single, and well over half were male. Tourists tend to be young (50 71 percent were between twenty and thirty years of age). Even so, it is shown that of those newly married Japanese couples, each year about A percent travel abroad and about half of this travel is to Guam compared 72 (See Table 17) This is owing to the rela— to a third to Hawaii. tively low cost of the excursion round—trip air fare between Guam and Osaka or Tokyo ($288 or r79,900 for Tokyo/Guam/Tokyo as of late 1977). The excursion fare restriction requires the traveler to return within twenty-eight days. By comparison the regular non-restricted, round- trip economy class ticket is $320 from Guam to Tokyo. The round-trip regular fare Tokyo/Manila is $590 (¥l63,600), from Tokyo to Hawaii the fare is currently $770 (¥213,AOO) for a twenty—one—day excursion with a fourteen-day minimum, and the Guam/Tokyo twenty—three-day excursion fare is $236. 71Peter C. Mayer, "The Visitor Industry on Guam", Vol. II, The Social—Economic Impact of Modern Technology Upon a Developing Insular Region: Guam (Agana: University of Guam Press, 1975) pp. III—37-38. 72Stanford Research Institute, 197A, p. B—lA. 116 Table 16. Visitor Arrivals In Guam According To Visitor Origin (1967—1975) Pacific United Trust Year Japan States Territory Philippines Other Total 1967 20.5% AO.7% 18.3% 20.5% 100.0% 1968 35.0 38.0 12.5 1A.5 100.0 1969 50.0 32.0 9.0 9.0 100.0 1970 59.8 2A.A 7.7 8.1 100.0 1971 70.5 16.6 6.2 6.7 100.0 1972 7A.9 15.6 A.0 5.5 100.0 1973 68.3 15.5 7.0 8.6 100.0 197A 66.1 10.5 7.7 5.1 100.0 1975 70.9 10.2 8.0 3.6 100.0 lEstimates Source: Statistical Abstract, 1976, p. 8A. Table 17. Guam's Share Of Total Japanese Travelers Going Abroad (1967—1973) Guam's Share Year of Total 1967 1% 1968 2 1969 3 1970 5 1971 8 1972 7 1973 6 Source: Stanford Research Institute, 197A, p. B—l6. 117 A study conducted in 197A projected 160,000 Japanese tourists, each purchasing a $AO0.00 average tour from Japan to Guam which provided about $6A million to the Japanese travel industry. This type of tour includes air fares, hotel and some sightseeing costs paid to the tour operator in Japan before leaving for Guam. The benefits to the Guam economy in this 197A study were calculated by the number of tourists times the length of their stay times their average expenditure per day. The dominance of the tourist industry by the tour operators (agents in Japan) with pre—purchase package tours provided an estima— tion of tourist expenditure once they were in Guam. The average expenditure by the Japanese tourist during a four—day, three—night stay was found to be $130 per day. About 60 percent of the daily Guam expenditure was for the purchase of personal items and gifts, and about AO percent for hotel accommodations, meals, sightseeing, and entertain- ment. This money apparently stays on Guam since it's spent here.73 If the 160,000 Japanese tourists projected for 197A spent $130 a day, and stayed three days, they contributed at least $62 million to the Guam economy in that year. In addition, economic benefits directly accrued in tax revenues for the Government of Guam. (See Table 18) Since the hotel occupancy tax was imposed in 1970, a total of more than $2.A million had been collected by the end of 197A. Originally estab— lished at 5 percent of room charges, the tax increased to 20 percent in 1975. Preliminary data show that 1975 and 1976 were slower years for Guam's tourist industry; but assuming no increase in room rates, a 73Martin Pray, "Growth and Effect of Air Charters on Guam's Tourist Industry," PASA, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Agana: Pacific Asian Studies Association, 1976) pp. 9—10. 118 Table 18. Hotel Occupancy Tax Collection By the Government of Guam (1970—197A), and Guam Visitors Bureau Budget (1970—1975) Amount Collected Guam Visitors Bureau Year (in dollars) Budget (in dollars) 1970 $ 60,200.00 $ 12A,9ll.00 1971 225,300.00 123,AA1 15 1972 AA3,000.00 117,700.00 1973 777,500.00 17A.992.AO 197A 932,000.00 17A,992.AO Tota1 $2,A38,000.00 $ 716,036.95 1975 estimate 1,000,000.00 750,000.00 Sources: Stanford Research Institute, 197A, p. B—23; Guam Visitors Bureau, 1976. 119 steady tourist occupancy, and no other major changes occurring in the industry, the hotel occupancy tax collections most likely will provide about $1 million annually to the Government of Guam for the next few years. Tourist expenditures can be a significant factor in the economy of Guam. If tourists make direct expenditures for a variety of goods and services, then the local industry re-spends this income for purchases of materials and services, wages and salaries of employees, advertising and promotion, taxes, replacement of capital assets, and new construction. This impact exists for the island. By the time the tourists' spending is exchanged a second time, the new revenue is disbursed throughout the economy. However, much of the present tourist development is controlled by foreign investment, predominantly the Japanese. A major share of recent investments in hotels, tour agencies, and tourist specialty shops are Japanese owned and operated. The major concentration of tourist hotels is located in Tumon along the Tumon Bay beaches. There are presently eight modern tourist hotels (the Japanese Tokyu is now closed), and two smaller off—the-beach hotels (Suehiro and Joinus) representing a capitalization for construction and equipment estimated at $60 million. Situated southwest to northwest along the crescent-shaped beach are the Hilton, Tokyu, Continental, Dai—Ichi, Tropicana (formerly the Kakuei), Fujita, Reef, and Okura. A total of 1,86A rooms is currently available. Five of these hotels are Japanese owned, and they control 65 percent of 120 those rooms, or 1,215 of the available tourist rooms. Island wide, the total number of hotel rooms is presently 2,555, compared to the 267 available back in 1967. However, while the predominance of the Japanese hotel interests is known, as of this date no scientific study has been conducted based on economic cost—benefits of Guam's tourism. Other disadvantages center on the relationship of environmental quality, public expenditure for infrastructure, and profit orientation of the investors. If there is a carrying capacity for tourists and if it is too high for the island's ecosystems, then a cursory examination already shows environ- mental degradation. Tumon Bay water quality, having declined in quality since 1970, but reported as ''adequate" for recreational uses, is artificially maintained. The sewage outfall for the Tumon area currently empties on the reef just to the south of the hotel district. Agana Bay water is tested regularly by the local water control agency, and is consistently reported in the newspapers as being too "polluted" for safe swimming. The joint aims of conserving the environmental aesthetics of Guam and of advancing economic development through tourism are inter— dependent. The more local participation in and associated economic benefits from tourism, the more the local populace will benefit from a commitment to preserve the attractive physical features which attract the tourists. If ecological considerations are ignored through poor private and governmental planning, then Guam can expect considerable undesirable consequences. One of Guam's most beautiful seascapes is now a built—up tourist area, and may offer an example of unplanned or spontaneous development. 121 Since 1967, most hotels that were built to cater to the tourists, which includes all of the major hotels on Tumon Bay, were given subsidies. The Government of Guam allowed reduced taxes for a designated time period to firms that would build hotels. These subsidies received by the off—island and foreign investors included a rebate of corporate income taxes and of income taxes on dividends paid to shareholders; real estate taxes were also reduced.7h Tourism is an important employer directly employing more than 3,000 persons in 197A. (See Table 19) Another source placed the employment number at A,A85 people working in the tourist industry in 197A.75 By comparison, the Government of Guam in 197A employed 8,566; the federal agencies' total civilian employment was 7,382; and in the private sector's general contracting and building trades, employment was 7,A58. Although the tourist industry employment is dispersed, collectively its impact on the economy is significant, representing between 11 and 20 percent of the work force. In addition, other employment resulting from tourism developments and expenditures probably brings about additional employment and business in general, and is affected by theeconomicactivity of the visitor industry. For example, one South region village, Inarajan, has organized a community project designed to attract——so far successfully——the around—the-island sightseeing tours organized for the Japanese hotel tourists. Earnings from the all—volunteer Lanchon Antigo, or old Chamorro village, stay in 71'Mayer, 1975, p. 111—3A. 75Carl J. Vail, Jr., ”The Economy," The Social-Economic Impact of Modern Technology Upon a Developing Insular Region: Guam, Vol. II (Agana: University of Guam Press, 1975) pp. III—l. 122 Table 19. Estimated Employment In Tourist-related Enterprises On Guam (March 197A) Type of Enterprise Number of Employees Airlines A82 Entertainers 100 Government 30 Hotels 1,560 Laundries 35 Rental car agencies 95 Security companies A0 Tourist shops A22 Sightseeing companies 139 Taxis and boats 100 Tour operators 50 Travel agencies 30 Total 3,083 Source: Stanford Research Institute, 197A, p. B—27. 123 the community for local services and benefits. This type of community project supports the social welfare of the village by its direct participation in the tourist industry. In addition, this type of local control of tourism combats the tendency of the profit-maximizing orientation that results from tourist development through overbuilding and excessive densities of visitors in the so—called hotel districts. Also, a decentralized tourism which allows less "leakage" of earnings to outside investors may achieve the results of more self-sufficiency for residents as in the case of the Chamorro village in Inarajan. It is reported that a large portion of the wages and salaries of the tourist industry is paid to employees residing in Guam. Prelim- inary reports show that about 66 percent of the income paid to employees in the tourist industry of Guam goes to local citizens. If a portion of the non—citizens' wages and salaries is spent locally, the overall impact may be equivalent to about 75 percent of the paid 76 salaries and wages. Purchases of goods, i.e., repairs and materials, cleaning and maintenance services, and public utilities including water, sewer, and electrical power, are all local expenditures. Manufacturing Guam's commercial activity is centered in Apra Harbor, which is located on the western or lee side of the island. (See Figure A) The island's deep—water port is on the north side of Apra Harbor. The attractive natural harbor is protected on the south by Orote Peninsula and on the north by Cabras Island and the breakwater built in the 76Stanford Research Institute, 197A, p. B—25. lialI The whole of Apra Harbor is controlled by the U.S. Navy mid-19Aos. WmmlShfiion) except for the Commercial Port,77 the island's port of Itis located about five miles southwest of Agana, the capital entry. This low sandy chy,almm the island's most extensive coastal plain. mmsmflzngion extends for about twelve miles, from southern Tamuning toldti,the former port of entry which is adjacent to the new Commercial Port . .MIimportant commercial advantage for the island is that the Cmmmrahfl.Port is a "free port" so that entering goods are exempt from U&1 gownnment tariffs. Additionally, finished commodities from Guam any enun'U.S. mainland ports as normal state goods. They are not cmmsidered foreign commodities or products as long as certain trade policies governing U.S. territories are met. Products such as clothing or watches are required to receive between 30 and 50 percent of their value on Guam before entering the United States. The export value added on Guam allows these products duty-free entry, subject to certain limitations of U.S. Customs law, into the mainland markets. .Although raw materials are lacking on Guam, manufacturing actdjnfties are increasing rapidly. Besides the tax—free status of (}uaml's Ixxrt, tax incentive programs established by the Guam Economic Ikavelxxpnmnrt Authority (GEDA) are attracting new industries to the isxlalui. ESuch manufacturing firms that presently operate on Guam are a tirwect: 1%38111t of the island's relative location and its strategic rYYTEhe fifteen acres of Commercial Port, Government of Guam, are sed by the port for wharfage and associated facilities, and by various rixvsrtez iiiruns and groups such as Mobil Oil Co. and the Marianas Yacht Lifb. 125 significance to present United States interests. The Guam Oil and Refining Company produces high-test airplane fuel and fuel oils for the militaryinstall ations on Guam. Two watch factories, one aluminum window assembly plant, several rock product plants producing ready—mix concrete and concrete blocks, bakeries, a dairy, a soft drinks plant, and local handicrafts are other industries that now exist for the mainland and local markets. Summary For most of the twentieth century, the economy and development Of Guam was dominated by the American military. A strong armed forces posture in the Pacific was maintained after 19A5, and Guam remained a Western Pacific military bastion. That federal dominance by the Department of Defense may conceivably continue, or decline at some future time, and the economic reliance on military spending remains open to question. However, several political directions and relatively recent economic programs are recognized since the 19505 and 19605. The development of Guam as a commercial and free port and as a tourist destination offers economic alternatives to federal spending, inclusive of the military sector. Today, both the cultural and physical features of the land demonstrate the influences of inter— national economic involvement from trade exchanges and visitor irrivals. However, these tertiary activities are maintained artifi— ially by U.S. government spending and the alliances between the nerican and Japanese. Further evaluation of that economic and >1itical connection requires attention. 126 TMedevelopment of visitor resorts and other related amenities inGmmancts the spatial patterns of several features of the lmflmmmnrmt the least of which are agriculture and settlement Fbr Guam the impact of tourism on such a small place has patterns. The advantages and saimmsmdal and ecological implications. Already competition for disadvantages require scientific appraisal. lahn'mm End for tourist activities presents problems. Dhmrsion of lands for tourist uses often means agricultural usasarelpst. Additionally, agricultural land uses in Guam correspond tocnmnsmmce generally, and specifically, they coincide with several imporunn;water lens; they become easily contaminated by over— popuhmfion. iFuture development of these primary areas as population and'mmudsm expand places farm, water lens, and open space lands in jeopardy. Another important aspect of tourist expansion involves the question of labor force productivity. As the proportion of the labor force increases for tourism, it may adversely affect regional develop— ment by lowering production levels throughout the economic system. lfinploynmnrt in tourism activities is often seasonal, with low-paid and Foreign labor lowméflctlled workers, and promotes use of alien labor. :nantijuies 1x3 have major effects on this economy both in the private and Lilitary sectors. Chapter VI. FUTURE OPTIONS The premise that the earth and its resources are finite sses this author's perception. Another premise such as that there 0 economic demand" for food in a population too poor to pay for it lead to the conclusion that there is a greater demand for food a different population (those who can pay for it); ten rich cans have a greater demand for food than ten hungry Bengalis. An mics that divorces the concept of "demand" from the reality of 1 need is not relevant. Likewise, the idea that physical rces are essentially unlimited and inexhaustible assumes that nic theories suggesting that resources can be infinite continue to )ur thinking. A supply that is assumed to be infinite can by Ltion satisfy infinite demand. Therefore the exhaustion of 11 resources must accordingly be assumed to be impossible--people ; exhaust the inexhaustible. In Guam this latter type of thinking appears to predominate. .tical economy dependent on U.S. public tax support provides for 'esent involuted and imbalanced system. The experience of Hawaii, 'ically Oahu, provides a parallel. Less than fifty years ago, 'as in about the same stage of development as Guam was in the 19705. Many Hawaiian families were in control of their space, and resources. Outside capital and the concomitant power that ith the money soon claimed control of the island(s). According 127 128 cent investigations not only are the Polynesian Hawaiians few in 13 but they control little land and few power positions in that ty. n 1: Guam Without the U.S. Military To suggest that the federal government and the U.S. military 5 of spending and development in Guam would decline to the level e—World War II is unrealistic, of course. At the time of the ese attack in December, 19A1, there existed transportation and nication facilities supported by a military and para—military 78 ition of 670. These naval facilities and associated commercial structure, the port and airfield, were restricted in size and ed in the Apra Harbor areas of Piti and Orote Peninsula. However, it would be unwise to project indefinitely the :ic commitment of military funding that has characterized the 7 years following the re—occupation of Guam in 19AA. Since 197A, :he American-Vietnamese War ending and the normalization policies Ihina occurring, a downward trend in armed forces personnel has >ped. The activities of the Ship Repair Facility at Naval Station lecreased to a low level causing a layoff of 361 civilians in However remote at this time world arms limitations agreements Iok, reduced military budgets may occur in some form in the Consequently, the U.S. military posture in the Western Pacific Iruptly change and decline. 78Carano, 196A, pp. 268—269; there were approximately 22,000 ans, 375 U.S. Navy and Marine enlisted men, A9 Naval and Marine rs and nurses, and 2A6 Guamanian Insular Force and Militia nel. -.‘vw“_fi _.A._'- 129 Developmental policies and programs (including population :ies) focus on several factors. The interrelated factors of people ;heir culture, environment (nature and territory), and economic .opment all may work toward balance. Balanced growth based on 5 i.e., homeostasis, and resources deriving their meaning from a ional sense reflect this type of model. Resources result from action between man and the land filtered through a cultural n. The concept of development here must include the right of enous peOple to survive with some degree of prosperity and rity. Thus, development is not just another word for moderniza— Regional development means the degree to which people within a manage to utilize their available resources. As their achieve— and knowledge accrue and changes, their right of access to native approaches for develOpment should remain open. Fundamental for stable development is land control and lisms for access to it. In Hawaii, as in Guam, the outsiders want vchase land; with the control of land, the investors——individual sporate——can closely monitor their investments. Land alienation Lced considerable numbers of Guamanians in the 19605 and early from land holdings as documented. For example, modernization has ad on coastal areas. These prime lowlands have undergone a rapid ’ormation. Practically no farming or traditional ranching exists .stal locations, where other forms of develOpment, both private fblic, have changed the landscape patterns. Land values and juent land use have placed a priority on commercial and residen- Isvelopment surrounding a modern highway system pressured by sing numbers of private automobiles. 130 Guam imports most of its food and nearly all consumer goods (nuside sources. Haverlandt's household survey conducted in 197A i.that less than Al percent of Guamanian families grew about 21 mu30f their food. Only 31 percent fished for 17 percent of that :tant food commodity. Still the potential farmland exists; the :ior areas, especially in the Central and South regions, lie idle. half of the Government of Guam land remains unsurveyed; large .ons of naval and air force lands are unused and empty of military 79 This situation of under—utilization of arable land for food ction is also reflected in the increasing balance of trade it. In 1965 the international trade of commodities for Guam was $50 million; in 197A it had reached $280 million. The deficits hose two years was $32.1 million and $239.1 million, respectively. means imports over exports rose from a 5.5 to 1 ratio to a 13 to l of imports of goods over exports of goods during those ten years. Food imports reflect the trend indicated by the above ratios. rade of commodity figures for 1972 show that 15.7 percent of all >ries of import commodities by value consisted of food. The >ries reported by the Department of Commerce——food and live £3, beverages and tobacco, and animal and vegetable Oils and -represent $26,118,010 of the $166,767,662 import bill for Guam in jMoreover, the United States provided 59.9 percent of the total 79Caranoreported in 19A8 that 2A.5 percent of Guam was :fied arable; Oxford Economic Atlas of the World, 3rd edition, :reported a figure for crOpland of 22.6 percent in 1965. 131 supubrin that year, followed by Australia (11.7 percent), New and GL7 percent), Japan (7.3 percent), Philippines (3.A percent), Dthar(3.3 percent), Hong Kong (2.0 percent), United Kingdom (1.3 ant),and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (1.2 percent). B'Usznited States provided about 60 percent of Guam's food 'ts,it also is Guam's leading trade partner, providing nearly 38 nu;of all imports during 1972 by value. Since all crude oil to comes from Saudi Arabia, the second leading importing country ding to the Commerce Department is "Other Countries (27.8 nt)," and Japan ranks third with 15.2 percent. The Philippines, d as the fourth overall importing nation, provides A percent, intially behind the first three. Hong Kong, Australia, Taiwan, 3w Zealand provide between one and three percent of Guam's :s, respectively. If military spending were to decline drastically, closer to a Irld War II level, one of the major changes would occur in the .nce of trade; a severe reduction of imports would take place the present large amounts of revenues to the island are supported 1y by federal taxes and/or Department of Defense expenditures for 5 construction and income from payrolls. Presently these federal gpay'ftu'the deficits in trade of commodities. Table 20 shows M3 largest category of imports in 1972 representing over 20 3<3f Guamis imports, was mineral fuels, lubricants, and related :5. 'The next two largest categories of imports directly depend firmyt: importation of machinery, transport equipment, and 132 Tmfle 20. Guam's International Trade, 1972 by Value (Categories of Commodities, Imports and Exports) '7 0d and live animals verages and Tobacco ude materials, inedible, :ept fuels ieral fuels, lubricants, 1 related products .mal and vegetable oils L fats micals ufactured goods ninery and transport ipment :ellaneous manufactured .cles Iodities and transactions sified according to kind 15 Imports Exports (In thousands $20,696 $ 3 Net Imports of dollars) $20,693 5,129 1.55A 38,700 251 5,089 27,A70 3A,726 15,587 1,167 5,171 A2 1,672 118 A6,115 7,A15 251 0 5,089 3 27,5A5 75 3A,9AO 21A 19,512 3,925 5,776 A,609 m m :e: EStatistical Abstract, Guam, 1973, (Agana: Department of (Commerce, Government of Guam, 197A) pp. AO-Al. \- ---— ~ 133 manufactures. All are high energy consuming items largely consisting of consumer goods, e.g., private automobiles, air conditioners, and other household electrical equipment. Electrical power sales. over the fiscal ten—year period 1966--~ 1975 increased from less than $3 million to over $26 million. Island- wide consumption in the same period rose from 100.5 million kilowatt hours to A51.8, which represents over a four—fold increase for residential and commercial/ government usage. The Guam Power Authority completed a new power generating facility at Cabras Island in Piti bringing the generating capacity of their service to 182 megawatts with current demand estimated at 60 megawatts. This semi-autonomous government utility is financed now by public bonds, and depends on crude oil imported from Saudi Arabia. A total of A,l61,000 barrels of oil was purchased at an average of $13.00 a barrel in 1975 for a crude oil bill of $5A,O93,000. This cost rises drastically when value added for conversion to electricity and gasoline is passed on to the consumer. 'While it is difficult to precisely measure the relationship of increasing technology and the use of fossil fuels because of lack of late, several facts are apparent. There is no public transportation ystem of Guam, and there were approximately 50,000. private motor ehicles registered in 1975. A review of the increase in number of tor vehicles on Guam will offer an estimate of the volume of fossil 2.1 consumption. The number of private cars has increased in the —year period 1966-1975 from 16,875 to A8,203. Government of Guam of vehicles increased eleven—fold during that time. Gasoline sumption estimates for private automobiles reveals a 37 percent 13A increase from 1962 to 1973. The total number of motor vehicles on the island in 1975 was 63,009. This means the island's population of 102,059 that year maintained a 1.6 per capita motor vehicle equivalency. Without large military and other federal appropriations and spending in Guam, the imbalanced economy would abruptly decline. Money going Off-island for large amounts of energy (fossil fuels) and consumer items would be reduced drastically. The expensive personal comfort and convenience items would decline from the present high levels. Another major imbalance in the economy is the spending of money on things which can be produced locally. Local food including fish could largely replace the existing imported diet of a majority of the present population. Tourism, regional communication and transportation activities, and certain federal projects could bring revenues in fOr basic levels of imported energy and manufactures, while the economy could shift to self-sufficiency and reliance on local resources. This approach means a shift towards autarcky and independence. During the general election held in November, 1976, the esidents of Guam had the opportunity to express their preference on a zture political status for Guam. The result of the referendum on the land's political relationship with the United States was decisively favor of a continuation of the status quo. A large majority of the ers supported "the continuation of the unincorporated status of Guam 8OStatistical Abstract, 1976, p. 81. 135 tuththe U.S."; "more of the same" sums up this position. Statehood orimmpendence, two other possible choices listed on the ballot, lecdyed relatively small percentages of the votes in that election. Improvement of this apparent favorable position in the American amtanwdll lie in the island's willingness and ability to achieve rehnuve growth toward a balanced and integrated economy. With respect tO'Um food base and diet, it has been shown that the agriculturalists thammlves consume adequate quantities of fruit and vegetables. Gaunelly, the record is less than satisfactory for other Guam rtsidents. A recent study of public school children shows a high intake of rice, bread, cereal, and other starchy foods. This is confirmed by import data; in 1972 imported rice amounted to 1A,190,57O pounds, which means a consumption rate of 1A0 pounds of rice per person. This compares to 116 pounds per capita in 1935. In that year local production of rice was 22 percent of consumption; today, all rice is imported. Today, the nutritional level of Guam school children shows severa1.disturbing characteristics. This same report by Sterling in ju976 indicates that the consumption of imported soft drinks, tea and (Klffee vfiimIsugar, and other sweetened beverages was high, along with :frirai foods, chips, and fat intake. Milk intake, on the other hand, 81 Jeanne B. Sterling, "Report on Eating Habits of Junior High ESCIMDCLL Students" (Agana: Department of Public Health and Social £3ei“vix:es, 1976) unpublished; also see Jean Hankin et. al., "Dietary sarui lDitsease Patterns among Micronesians," The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 23, No. 3, March, 1970, pp. 3A6-357. 136 was found to be low. However, both studies found intake of protein- rich foods was high. Using a dietary recall method these studies found overall daily meal patterns to be poor to fair for Guamanians. Chapter VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS What impressed me the most about the farm survey-fieldwork was Ie very positive response of the Guam agriculturalists. They were enerally COOperative in answering accurately most of the questions. Le farmers pointed out the need for government support for such Indamental assistance as water supply and irrigation works. Further, Iey recognized how depressed the farm industry was, and believed that Iey themselves must continually struggle for their minority way of -fe in order to retain the viability of local ranching. Despite the difficult environmental limitations, competition >r job opportunity and land use competition remain the basic problems >r increased agricultural development in Guam. Presently, Guam property taxes are comparatively low for all ses. But more often than not, this assessed value (determined by the apartment of Revenue and Taxation), is inflated for the agricultural and in Guam. Thus the farmer's property taxes may rise to the point lere it is impossible for the farmer to carry on agricultural :tivities. In other words, due to shifts in land rent, he may reach me no—rent margin for farming purposes. Often, Guam farmers sell heir land to a developer, and the community loses: more food— roducing acreage covered by asphalt, concrete, and fenced-in home awns. In Guam, it is the speculation factor which causes the farm perator to give up the struggle of ranching. He finds willing 137 138 nannational buyers prepared to offer small fortunes for relatively uhl parcels of land. In early 197A, land prices were as high as $10 5815 a square meter for accessible agriculturally zoned land. Currently, proposals call for thwarting the problem of Lndling agricultural production activities not only near urban eas, but island-wide. Plans would call for use value assessment of alified agricultural and/or horticultural lands. In essence, a rmer would be paying taxes on the value of the land in its present e, rather than paying taxes on the value of land if it were converted urban or commercial uses. For example, a farmer is near or sur— unded by developing land. If he abandons farming, or perhaps stops rming temporarily, and/or subdivides the prOperty, under the present 'stem his land would be evaluated and assessed at a higher level than ’ assessed as agricultural land. To curb the sale of croplands, under these proposals the .rmer would get a substantial tax break, thus encouraging him to :tain ownership of the land while working the land agriculturally. If Ie farmer sells his land within a certain time period, he would be Llled upon to pay a penalty for taking the land out of agricultural :oduction, as specified in law (if such legislation is passed and qflemented). Additionally, some have called for all zoned cropland to 3 sold only to the Government of Guam, which then would redistribute 1e land to others for agricultural use. A develOpment policy based on higher levels of agricultural roduction creating food self—sufficiency will improve diets. Like— ise,less reliance on imports will strengthen the balance of payments. 139 >censs of improving the Guam food base will also increase the 3icn1 with land ownership by the Guamanians. Their control of 3 flundamental to the preservation of their culture. IEresently, all urban land use (residential, commercial, and riaJ.) accounts for approximately 10 percent of the civilian ifixies' land area. Agriculture, conservation, and open space uses I>zibout 50 percent of public and private land on all non-federal tyu Given proper planning with emphasis toward internal figment, Guam residents have the basic resources of water, air, and :0 offer a reasonably secure future for limited lifestyles. The work for balance does not rest on conspicuous consumption of 1e resources. The outside resources that exist owing to this ical connection with the American community should be carefully zed and controlled. The following are this author's recommendations based on this rch. This first section sets out general ideas which must be dered by the whole community for eventual adoption. The second of recommendations might help shape specifics within a master plan eghfletive and executive action on the part of the Government of a1 recommendations: 1) Establish a Guam population commission to design and develop a comprehensive population policy which defines the relationships of optimum numbers of people and their quality of space; establish a family planning program which 1A0 would be coordinated with existing public health facilities and programs; restrict immigration to Guam by the establishment of a coordinated federal and local government program. Assign priority to development programs for agriculture and fisheries, with the Government of Guam providing initial programs utilizing public lands and expertise; establish educational and public relations programs for the recogni- tion of the importance of self—reliance and self- sufficiency in values and activities. Enact a moratorium on off-island and alien land acquisi- tion, and provide regulations for short—term lease arrangements for alien investors who desire land. Implement immediately stringent enforcement of land use and development laws related to land zoning and building codes. Specific recommendations: 1) Establish economic support for part-time gardening and near space horticulture and aquaculture which follow traditional values and patterns for food production; maintain a long—term focus on intensive farming of rela— tively small parcels of land, as presently in existence, for production of vegetables and fruits solely for local consumption as a significant and viable alternative to the present imbalances. 1A1 Encourage the development of a larger scale, commercial type of intensive horticulture and aquaculture industry owned and operated by residents for the Guam market and located within the designated agricultural district lands; allow limited alien labor, GEDA loans, and abatement on taxes in the initial phases, along with government water and electrical power subsidies. Obtain U.S. military release of idle lands for long—term (more than 5 years) agricultural development; promote cooperation between the Government of Guam and the Department of Defense to establish more programs such as the eighty acres of agricultural land at Naval Communica— tions Station in Barrigada, with development rights for building permanent, agriculturally sound facilities. Construct a sewer—irrigation water recycling system, available to both part— and full-time farmers. Establish a revolving fund for recovery subsidies following typhoons and all damaging tropical storms, with emphasis on providing farmers with seed money for immediate recovery from storm damages and replanting expenses. Continue development and support of the University of Guam extension and research services and Department of Agriculture programs, with emphasis on public financial support for the Guam Farmers' Cooperative Association and other farmer organizations. 1A2 Foster public recognition of and more volunteer support for community action and educational programs such as the Green Revolution Committee and A-H clubs; establish an executive and legislative commission on agriculture and nutrition. APPENDIX GUAM AGRICULTURAL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Personal and Social Background: What is your age? 1 1. 1—15 yrs. 2. 16—2A 3. 25—3A A. 35_AA 5. A5—5A 7. over 65 years Where were you born? 2 1. Agana 2. Agana Heights 3. Agat A. Asan 5. Barrigada 6. Chalan Pago 7. Dededo 8. Inarajan 1. Maina 2. Maite 3. Malojloj A. Merizo 3 5. Mongmong 6. Piti 7. Santa Rita 8. Sinajana l. Sumay 2. Talofofo 3. Tamuning A. Toto A 5. Tumon 6. Umatac 7. Yigo 8. Yona 1. Guam 2. U.S.A. 3. Korea A. Japan 5 5. Philippines 6. T.T. What is your marital status? 6 1. Married 2. Single 3. Separated from family A. Divorced How many children do you have? —*77-“ 1. 0 2. 1—A 3. 5—8 A. 9—12 5. 13—17 6. 18—22 7. over 23 How many attend school? 8 1. 1-3 2. A—7 3. 8—11 A. 12-15 5. over 15 Number of people in your household: 9 1. 0-2 2. 3-10 3. 11-20 A. over 20 Al Location: 10 11 12 13 1A 15 16 l7 18 l9 2 Residence and Farm (5): In what village or district do you live? (Your house location) 1. Agana 2. Agana Heights 3. Agat A. Asan 5. Barrigada 6. Chalan Pago 7. Dededo 8. Inarajan l. Maina 2. Maite 3. Malojloj A. Merizo 5. Mongmong 6. Piti 7. Santa Rita 8. Sinajana l. Talofofo 2. Tamuning 3. Toto A. Tumon 5. Umatac 6. Yigo 7. Yona 8. Mangilao 9. Marbo 1. North 2. South 3. Central Do you live on your ranch or farm? 1. Yes 2. No Do you have more than one (1) ranch? 1. Yes 2. No How many ranch areas or plots do you operate? 1. l 2. 2—3 3. A—5 A. 6-7 5. 8 or more Where are they located? Agat A. Asan Dededo 8. Agana Heights 3. Chalan Pago 7. 1. Agana 2. 5. Barrigada 6. Inarajan Location: 10 11 12 13 1A 15 16 17 18 l9 2 Residence and Farm (5): In what village or district do you live? (Your house location) 1. Agana 2. Agana Heights 3. Agat A. Asan 5. Barrigada 6. Chalan Pago 7. Dededo 8. Inarajan l. Maina 2. Maite 3. Malojloj A. Merizo 5. Mongmong 6. Piti 7. Santa Rita 8. Sinajana l. Talofofo 2. Tamuning 3. Toto A. Tumon 5. Umatac 6. Yigo 7. Yona 8. Mangilao 9. Marbo 1. North 2. South 3. Central Do you live on your ranch or farm? 1. Yes 2. No Do you have more than one (1) ranch? 1. Yes 2. No How many ranch areas or plots do you operate? 1. l 2. 2-3 3. A—5 A. 6-7 5. 8 or more Where are they located? Agat A. Asan Dededo 8. Agana Heights 3. Chalan Pago 7. l. Agana 2. 5. Barrigada 6. Inarajan 2O 21 22 23 2A 25 Farm Size: 26 27 Land Ownership and Tenure: 3 1. Maina 2. Maite 3. Malojloj A. Merizo 5. Mongmong 6. Piti 7. Santa Rita 8. Sinajana l. Talofofo 2. Tamuning 3. Toto A. Tumon 5. Umatac 6. Yigo 7. Yona 8. Mangilao 9. Marbo 1. North 2. South 3. Central How long have you worked or operated your ranch or farm? 1. 0-2 yrs. 2. 3—9 yrs. 3. more than 9 years Farm holdings by (areal units) hectares, acres, square meters, square feet. How do you measure the area of your land? 1. hectares 2. acres 3. square meters A. square feet 5. other units How much total land do you work or operate? (acres) 1. 0-2 2. 3—A 3. 5—7 A. 8—10 5. 11—20 6. 21—over Tenure of the farm operator, full owner or 28 individual, part owner or family, tenant, manager. Who owns the land you farm? 1. Do you 2. Your family 29 3. Do you rent or lease; friend or relative 30 A. A company or Corporation 31 5. The Government of Guam; the Department of Agriculture 32 Land Lease Program How did you acquire the land? 1. Inheritance 33 2 Buy 3A 3. Rent 35 A. Other, (specify) 36 Farm Land Value (including all real estate of the farm): What is the dollar value of your land by the unit, square 37 meter? 1. 0—5 2. 6-10 3. 11—15 A. 16—20 5. 21-25 6. more than 25 If you wanted to sell the land, how much do you think it 38 is worth? (dollars/sq. meter) 1. 0-5 2. 6-10 3. 11-15 A. 16—20 5. 21—25 6. more than 25 5 Physiography: Terrain, land form regions, soils, climate and 39/A0 A9/5O 51/52 vegetation. What portion of your farm land lies along the beach (coastal plains)? (%) 1. 0—10 2. 11—20 3. 21—30 A. 3l-AO 5. Al—50 6. 51—60 7. 61-70 8. 71-80 9. 81—90 10. 91—100 What portion of your farm land lies in the south near the mountains (southern volcanic uplands)? (%) 1. O-10 2. 11—20 3. 21-30 A. 31-A0 5. Al-50 6. 51—60 7. 61—70 8. 71—80 9. 81—90 10. 91—100 What portion of your farm land lies in the north and near the center 9f_the island (northern limestone plateau)? (%) 1. 0—10 2. 11—20 3. 21-30 A. 3l-AO 5. Al—50 6. 51—60 7. 61-70 8. 71—80 9. 81—90 10. 91-100 What percent of your farm land lies in valleys and low areas? 1. 0—10 2. 11-20 3. 21—30 A. 3l—AO 5. A1—5O 6. 51—60 7. 61-70 8. 71—80 9. 81—90 10. 91—100 15 your land sloped or hilly? 1. Yes 2. No What percent is very hilly (or excessively sloped)? 1. 0-10 2. 11—20 3. 21-30 A. 31-AO 5. A1—5O 6. 51—60 7. 61—70 8. 71-80 9. 81—90 10. 91—100 What percent is a little hilly (or moderately sloped)? 1. 0—10 2. 11—20 3. 21-30 A. 31—AO 5. Al—50 6. 51—60 7. 61—70 8. 71-80 9. 81—90 10. 91—100 53 5A 55 56 57 58 59 6O 61 62 6 Is your land dry (well drained) all year? 1. Yes 2. No Is your 1. Yes 2. No land dry for only part of the year? What kind of dirt or soil do you have? 1. clay 2. alluvial (valley) 3. red (lateritic) A. other, specify 15 your dirt or soil 1. very good (superior fertility) 2. poor (low fertility) fertility) 3. Is there enough rain all year 1. Yes 2. No Do you add (by hose, pipes or to your fields by irrigation? 1. Yes 2. No If yes how many months do you (months/year) three 1. one 2. two 3. 6. six alright (average around for crops to grow? building water ditches) water add water to your fields? A. four 5. five 63 6A 65 66 67 68 Farm Land 7 1. seven 2. eight 3. nine A. ten 5. eleven 6. twelve Other than crops and pasture, what other type of plants (vegetation) are found on your farmlands? 1. grass 2. tangentangen 3. mixed forest A. coconut trees 5. others (specify) Use: 69/70 71/72 73/7A What percentage of your farmland is used for crOpland (all lands tilled or cultivated)? 1. 0—10 2. 11-20 3. 21-30 A. 31—A0 5. A1—5O 6. 51—60 7. 61-70 8. 71—80 9. 81—90 10. 91—100 What percentage of your farmland is used for pasture (all land used for stock grazing)? 1. 0-10 2. 11—20 3. 21—30 A. 31—A0 5. A1—5O 6. 51—60 7. 61—70 8. 71—80 9. 81—90 10. 91—100 What percentage of your farmland is used for forest (includes palm groves, mixed forest of pandanus, breadfruit and cycad)? 1. O—10 2. 11-20 3. 21-30 A. 3l-A0 5. Al-50 6. 51—60 7. 61—70 8. 71—80 9. 81—90 10. 91—100 8 What percentage of your farmland is used for farm buildings 75/76 (including your residence, pens, barns, sheds, warehouses, etc.)? 1. 0-10 2. 11—20 3. 21-30 A. 3l—AO 5. Al-50 6. 51—60 7. 61—70 8. 71—80 9. 81—90 10. 91—100 What percentage of your farmland is used for farm roads 77/78 (including paths, trails, etc.)? 1. 0—10 2. 11—20 3. 21—30 A. 31—AO 5. A1—50 6. 51—60 7. 61—70 8. 71—80 9. 81—90 10. 91-100 What percentage of your farmland is unused (waste, fallow, 79/80 mountains, etc.)? 1. 0-10 2. 11—20 3. 21—30 A. 31—AO 5. A1-50 6. 51—60 7. 61-70 8. 71—80 9. 81—90 10. 91-100 What percentage of your farmland is used for drainage and 1/2 irrigation ditches and facilities? 1. 0—10 2. 11—20 3. 21—30 A. 31—A0 5. A1—50 6. 51—60 7. 61—70 8. 71-80 9. 81-90 10. 91-100 Crops and Animals: What amount of land is planted in tomato? (acres) 3 1. 0-5% of an acre 2. 6-10 3. 11—50 A. 51-99 5. 1-2 acres 6. 3—5 7. over 5 What amount of land is planted in eggplant? (acres) A 1. 0-5% of an acre 2. 6—10 3. 11—50 A. 51—99 5. 1-2 acres 6. 3-5 7. over 5 What amount of land is planted in beans? (acres) 5 1. 0—5% of an acre 2. 6—10 3. 11-50 A. 51-99 5. 1-2 acres 6. 3-5 7. over 5 10 ll 12 l3 1A What amount of 1. 0—5% of an 5. 1—2 acres What amount of 1. 0-5% of an 5. 1—2 acres What amount of 1. 0-5% of an 5. 1—2 acres What amount of 1. 0-5% of an 5. 1-2 acres What amount of 1. 0-5% of an 5. 1—2 acres 9 land is planted in melons? (acres) acre 2. 6-10 3. 11—50 A. 51—99 6. 3-5 7. over 5 land is planted in cucumbers? (acres) acre 2. 6-10 3. 11—50 A. 51—99 6. 3-5 7. over 5 land is planted in cabbages? (acres) acre 2. 6—10 3. 11-50 A. 51—99 6. 3—5 7. over 5 land is planted in peppers? (acres) acre 2. 6-10 3. 11-50 A. 51-99 6. 3—5 7. over 5 land is planted in corn? (acres) acre 2. 6-10 3. 11-50 A. 51—99 6. 3-5 7. over 5 How many acres are planted in all the above crops? 1. less than one acre 2. 1-2 acres 3. 3—5 A. 6-10 5. 11—20 6. 21-50 7. over 50 How many acres are planted to tree crops-banana? 1. 0—5% of an acre 2. 6—10 3. 11-50 A. 51—99 5. 1—2 acres 6. 3-5 7. over 5 How many acres are planted to tree crops—citrus? 1. 0—5% of an acre 2. 6—10 3. 11—50 A. 51—99 5. 1-2 acres 6. 3—5 7. over 5 How many acres are planted to tree crops-mango? 1. 0—5% of an acre 2. 6—10 3. 11—50 A. 51-99 5. 1—2 acres 6. 3-5 7. over 5 l5 16 l7 l8 l9 2O 21 22 23 10 How many acres are planted to tree crops-papaya? 1. 0—5% of an acre 2. 6—10 3. 1-2 acres 6. 3-5 7. over 5 11—50 A. 51—99 W How many acres are planted to tree crops-coconut palm? O—5% of an acre 2. 6—10 3. 11-50 A. 5. 1—2 acres 6. 3—5 7. over 5 H 51-99 How many acres are planted to tree crops—betelnut palm? 1. 0—5% of an acre 2. 6—10 3. 11—50 A. 51—99 5. 1—2 acres 6. 3-5 7. over 5 How many acres are planted in all tree crops? 1. less than one acre 2. 1—2 acres 3. 3-5 A. 6-10 5. 11—20 6. 21—60 7. over 50 How much land is planted twice (double crOpped) yearly? (%) 1. 0—5 2. 6—10 3. 11—20 A. over 20 How much land is planted three times (triple cropped) yearly? (%) 6—10 3. 11—20 A. 1. 0—5 2. over 20 What percent of land is used for interculture (for example, tree crops and vegetables in the same field)? 1. 0—5 2. 6—10 3. 11—20 A. over 20 Are your crops planted by season? 1. Yes 2. No For your farm operation, how many crop seasons are there in one year? 1. one season 2. two seasons 3. A. more than three seasons three seasons 2A 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 11 How much land is used for animal purposes (total fields, lots and pens)? 1. 0-5 How many 1. 0—10 6. 51—60 How many farm? 1. 0-10 6. more How many farm? 1 O—10 6. more How many 1. 0-10 6. more How many 1. 0-10 6. more How many 1. O—10 6. more How many farm? 1. 0—10 6. more (%) 2. 6-10 3. 11-20 A. more than 20 hogs (all pigs) do you have on your ranch or farm? 21—30 A. 3l-AO 5. Al—50 more than 70 2. 11—20 3. 7. 61—70 8. dairy (milking) cows do you have on your ranch or 2. 11-20 3. 21-30 A. 3l—AO 5. A1—50 than 50 beef cattle (cows) do you have on your ranch or 2. 11—20 3. 21—30 A. 3l—AO 5. A1—50 than 50 sheep do you have on your ranch or farm? 2. 11—20 3. 21-30 A. 31—AO 5. Al-50 than 50 goats do you have on your ranch or farm? 2. 11—20 3. 21—30 A. 3l—AO 5. A1—5O than 50 horses do you have on your ranch or farm? 2. 11—20 3. 21-30 A. 3l-AO 5. Al-50 than 50 buffaloes (carabaos) do you have on your ranch or 2. 11—20 3. 21-30 A. 3l-AO 5. Al-50 than 50 32 33 3A 35 36 37 38 39 A0 12 How many laying chickens do you have on your ranch or farm? 1. 0—50 2. 51—100 3. 101—150 A. more than 150 How many wild (scavenger) chickens do you have on your ranch or farm? 1. 0—50 2. 51—100 3. 101-150 A. more than 150 How many geese do you have on your ranch or farm? 1. 0-50 2. 51—100 3. 101—150 A. more than 150 How many ducks do you have on your ranch or farm? 1. 0—50 2. 51—100 3. 101—150 A. more than 150 How many turkeys do you have on your ranch or farm? 1. 0—50 2. 51-100 3. 101—150 A. more than 150 Specify other livestock and number on your ranch or farm? 1. 0—50 2. 51—100 3. 101—150 A. more than 150 What part or percent of your crop production (of all vegetables and fruit together) is eaten by you and your family? Al-6O 5. 61 and over 1. 0—20 2. 2l—AO 3. How often are vegetables served to your family? 1. at least once a day 2. 2 to 3 times a week 3. once a week or less What part or percent of your livestock production (of all livestock together, such as cows, pigs, chickens, etc.) is eaten by you and your family? A1—6O A. 1. 0—20 2. 2l—AO 3. 61 and over 13 How often is fruit served to your family? Al l. at least once a day 2. 2 to 3 times a week 3. once a week or less Agricultural Labor: You are classified as a A2 1. full time farmer 2. part time farmer Do you operate your farm alone?~ A3 1. Yes 2. No Do you hold other jobs? AA 1. Yes 2. No What part or portion of your total income comes from an A5 outside job? (%) 1. 0-20 2. 21-AO 3. A1—6O A. 61—80 5. more than 80 What is the average number of hours you work per week on A6 outside jobs? 1. 0—10 2. 11—20 3. 21—30 A. 31—Ao 5. A1—50 6. 51—60 7. more than 60 What is the average number of hours you work per week on A7 your farm? 1. 0—10 2. 11—20 3. 21—30 A. 31—Ao 5. A1—5o 6. 51—60 7. more than 60 Do you hire or receive work from others in your farm A8 operation? 1. Yes 2. No A9 50 51 52 Investment: 53 5A 55 56 1A How many hours per week are received from family members? 1. 0-10 2. 11—20 3. 21-30 A. more than 30 How many hours per week are received from part and full time employees? 1. 0-10 2. 11—20 3. 21-30 A. more than 30 Do you employ contract alien workers? 1. Yes 2. No If yes, how many? more than 6 1. 1—2 2. 3-A 3. 5—6 A. How many trucks do you possess in your farm operation? 1. 0—1 2. 2-3 3. A or more How many other motor vehicles do you possess in your farm operation? 1. 0—1 2. 2-3 3. A or more How many tractors do you possess in your farm operation? 1. O-l 2. 2-3 3. A or more How many planting equipment (plows) do you possess in your farm operation? 1. 0-1 2. 2-3 3. A or more How many wheelbarrows do you possess in your farm Operation? 1. 0-1 2. 2—3 3. A or more 58 59 6O 61 62 63 6A 65 15 How many harvesting eguipment do you possess in your farm operation? 1. 0-1 2. 2—3 3. A or more How many hand tools do you possess in your farm operation? l. O-l 2. 2—3 3. A or more How many rototillers do you possess in your farm operation? 1. 0—1 2. 2—3 3. A or more How many other tools do you possess in your farm operation? (specify tool) 1. 0—1 2. 2—3 3. A or more How much did you invest in equipment in 1972? (Dollars) 1. 0—100 2. 101-500 3. 501-1000 A. 1000—2000 5. 2001-3000 6. more than 3000 Do you have electricity on your farm? (GPA service) 1. Yes 2. No How much did you spend on electricity in l972? (Dollars) 1. 0-100 2. 101-200 3. 201—300 A. 30l—AOO 5. AOl—SOO Do you have a telephone? 1. Yes 2. No Farm Expenditures: 66 What is the yearly expense for feed? (Dollars) 1. 0—50 2. 51-100 3. 101—150 A. 151—200 5. 201—A5o 6. over A51 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 TA 75 16 What is the yearly expense breeding? (Dollars) 1. 0—50 2. 51-100 3. 5. 201—A5o 6. over A51 What is the yearly expense 1. 0—50 2. 51-100 3. 5. 201—A50 6. over A51 What is the yearly expense 1. 0-50 2. 51—100 3. 5. 201—A5o 6. over A51 What is the yearly expense 1. 0-50 2. 51—100 3. 5. 201-A50 6. over A51 What is the yearly expense 1. 0-50 2. 51—100 3. 5. 201-A50 6. over A51 What is the yearly expense 1. 0-50 2. 51-100 3. 5. 201-A50 6. over A51 What is the yearly expense 1. 0—50 2. 51-100 3. 5. 201-A50 6. over A51 What is the yearly expense 1. 0-50 2. 51—100 3. 5. 201—A5o 6. over A51 What is the yearly expense 1. 0-50 2. 51—100 3. 5. 2o1-A50 6. over A51 for animal purchase and 101-150 A. 151—200 for fertilizers? (Dollars) 101-150 A. 151—200 for seed? (Dollars) 101—150 A. 151—200 for fuel? (Dollars) 101-150 A. 151-200 for gas? (Dollars) 101—150 A. 151—200 for water? (Dollars) 101—150 A. 151—200 for herbicides? (Dollars) 101—150 A. 151-200 for insecticides? (Dollars) 101—150 A. 151—200 for medicine? (Dollars) 101-150 A. 151-200 76 77 78 79 80 17 What is the yearly expense for hand tools? (Dollars) 1. 0—50 2. 51-100 3. 101—150 A. 151—200 5. 201—A50 6. over A51 What is the yearly expense for labor? (Dollars) 1. 0—500 2. SOl—2,000 3. 2,001—5,000 A. 5,001—10,000 5. over 10,000 What is the yearly expense for other items? (Dollars) 1. 0-50 2. 51-100 3. 101—150 A. 151—200 5. 201—A50 6. over A51 How much did you spend in 1972 for equipment repairs and maintenance? (Dollars) 1. 0-100 2. 101—200 3. 201-300 A. 301—A00 5. A01-500 6. over 500 Do you use veterinarian services? 1. Yes 2. No Do you use water (for ranching or the farm operation) from the Public Water System? 1. Yes 2. No If yes, do you receive the agriculture cost rate? 1. Yes 2. No If available, would you use a Public Water System designed for irrigation only (watering your plants)? 1. Yes 2. No If yes, what is the highest water rate you would be willing to pay? 1. If the water cost $0.50/1000 gal. 2. If the water cost $0.37/1000 gal. 3. If the water cost $0.25/1000 gal. 18 Improvements: 10 11 12 13 Did you add water works (irrigation facilities) in your farm operation? 1. Yes 2. No Did you add drainage facilities in your farm operation? 1. Yes 2. No Do you rotate your crops seasonally or yearly? 1. Yes 2. No Do you fertilize regularly? 1. Yes 2. No How often? 1. Weekly 2. Monthly 3. Yearly Do you fertilize by using: 1. Only manures 2. Both of the above Only chemicals 3. How much fertilizer do you put into your soil yearly? (1bs.) 51-75 A. 76—500 more than 2000 lbs. 1. 0-25 2. 26-50 3. 5. 501-2000 6. Do you terrace on sloped land? 1. Yes 2. No Do you have any tanks, ponds, barrels, or water reservoirs on your farm? 1. Yes 2. No 1A Credit: l5 16 l7 18 l9 19 If yes, how many? 1. 1—2 2. 3—A 3. 5 or more Do you have a mortgage on your ranch or farm? 1. Yes 2. No Do you have any long term loans? 1. Yes 2. No Do you get loans for yearly Operational needs? 1. Yes 2. No Do you receive money (financial aid) from any government agency? 1. Yes 2. No How much is your overall farm debt at this time? (Dollars) 1. 0-1,000 2. 1,001-5,000 3. 5,001-20,000 A. more than 20,000 Role of Government: 2O 21 Are you a member of a farmers' organization (such as a co-op or agriculture club)? 1. Yes 2. No If yes, what is the name? 1. Guam Farmers' Association (Co—op) 2. Others 22 23 2A 25 26 27 28 29 20 Does the Department of Agriculture offer any assistance to you and your operation? 1. If Is Is Is Is Is Is Yes 2. No yes, is it in financial aid (money)? Yes it in Yes it in Yes it in Yes it in Yes it in Yes it in Yes 2. No technical knowledge? 2. No equipment loans? 2. No seed and plant aid? 2. No training and education? other assistance? 2. No crop and animal subsidies? 2. No (Specify) 2. No BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Aflague, Juan S., "Agricultural Report," Vol. 12, Guam Recorder (Agana, Guam, 1935) pp. 20A—205. Aguon, Frank B., J.V. Hurst, and W.G. Firestone, Vegetable Gardens, Bulletin No. 3 (Agana: Department Of Agriculture, 1966) 32 pp. Annual Report of the Governor of Guam (Agana, Guam, 1910) 25 pp. Barrau, Jacques, editor, Plants and Migrations of Pacific Peoples: A Symposium (Honolulu: Bishop Museum, 1963) 136 pp. , Subsistence Agriculture in Polynesia and Micronesia, Bulletin 233 (Honolulu: Bishop Museum, 1961) 9A pp. , "Plant Introduction in the Pacific: Its Role in Economic Development," Pacific Viewpoint, Vol. 1, NO. 1 (Wellington, N.Z.: Dept. of Geography, 1960) pp. 1-10. Barrett, Ward J., Mission in the Marianas: An Account of Fr. Diego Luis de Sanvitores and His Companions, 1669+1670 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1975) 62 pp. Blumenstock, David I., "Distribution and Characteristics of Tropical Climates," Ninth Pacific Science Congress Proceedings, Vol. 20, (Bangkok: PSC, 1957) pp. 3—2A. in J. Tracey, et. al., General Geology Of Guam, U.S.G.S. Professional Paper AO3-A (Washington, Government Printing Office, 196A) pp. 9-11. Bowers, Neal M., "The Mariana, Volcano, and Bonin Islands," Otis W. Freeman (ed.), Geography of the Pacific (New York: Wiley, 1951) pp. 205—236. Bryan, Edwin H., Jr., Guide to Place Names in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, Pacific Scientific Information Center (Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum, 1971). , "Notes on the Ancient Culture of Guam," Guam Recorder (Agana: Micronesian Area Research Center, 1971) pp. 6—7. , "Check List Of Atolls," Atoll Research Bulletin, NO. 19, (Washington: Pacific Science Board, 1953) pp. 1-19. B1 2 , "Geographic Summary of Micronesia," Douglas L. Oliver (ed.), Economic Survey of Micronesia, (19A7), typescript, microfilm, Library of Congress. , Maps of the ISlands Of Micronesia, compiled by the Research Section, United States Commercial Company Economic Survey (19A6), 1A8 pp. Carano, Paul and Sanchez, Pedro C., A Complete History of Guam (Tokyo: Charles Tuttle CO., 196A) A52 pp. Carey, Edwin L., (editor), Guam 1970: An Economy in Transition (Agana: Department of Commerce, Government Of Guam, 1971) A6 pp. Dasmann, Raymond F., John P. Milton, and Peter H. Freeman, Ecological Principles for Economic Development (New York: Wiley, 1973) 252 pp. Department of Land Management, General Land Use Data and Trends (Agana: Government of Guam Department of Land Management, 1973) 11 pp. unpublished. Douglas, Gina, "Draft Check List of the Pacific Oceanic Islands," Micronesica, Vol. 5, NO. 2 (Agana: University Of Guam, 1969) pp. 332—A62. Emery, K.0., Marine Geology of Guam, U.S.G.S. Professional Paper A03-B (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1963) 76 pp. Environmental Impact Statement Ammunition Pier, p-550 Sella Bay, Guam, Mariana Islands (Washington: Department of the Nayy, June 1971) 30 pp. Freeman, Otis W., (editor), Geography Of the Pacific (New York: Wiley, 1951) 573 PP- Gawel, Michael J., Guam Coastal Planning Bibliography, Sea Grant Publication U.G.S.G. 76—07 (Agana: Bureau Of Planning, 1976) 205 pp. Gillham, Koebig, and Koebig, Inc., Irrigation Feasibility Study (Agana: Department Of Agriculture, 1973) 77 pp. Greenleaf and Telesca—Ahn, Guam Master Plan, Phase I: Problems, Opportunities, and Alternatives (Agana: Government of Guam, 1972) 308 pp. Guam Historic Preservation Plan (Agana: Government of Guam Department of Parks and Recreation, 1976) 1A5 pp. 3 Hankin, Jean, Dwayne Reed, Darwin Labarthe, Milton Nichaman, and Reuel Stallones, "Dietary and Disease Patterns Among Micronesians," The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 23, No. 3, March 1970, pp. 3A6-357. Haverlandt, R.0., ”The Guamanian Economic Experience," Vol. III, Part VI, The Social—Economic Impact Of Modern Technology Uppn a Developing7Insular Region: Guam (Agana: University of Guam Press, 1975) pp. VI—97—123. Huxel, C.J. "Water Resources in Limestone Islands," Seminar on Conservation Education, South Pacific Commission Report, 1973, unpublished. Jennison—Nolan, Jane, "Land Use on Guam," Chapter I, Social Baseline Study for the Island of Guam, University of Guam (Agana: Micronesian Area Research Center, 1976) pp. 1—60. Johnson, Walter D. and Carey, Edwin L., Guam 1969: A Developing Pacific Economy (Agana: Guam Technical Services, 1970) 37 pp. Johnsrud, Lawrence and Associates, Outdoor Recreation on Guam (Agana: Territorial Planning Commission, 1967) 70 pp. Lee, David, "Problems in Tropical Agriculture: A Case Study from Guam," Yearbook, Vol. 33 (Corvallis: Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, 1971) pp. A7—6A. Leon Guerrero, Wilfred P., R. Muniappan, Jack Ishida, and Victor Artero, Trends in Agricultural Development in Guam and Micro— nesia (Agana: University of Guam, 1976) A6 pp. unpublished. Marshall, Mac and James D. Nason, Micronesia 19AA-197A; A Bibliography (New Haven: HRAF Press, 1975) 337 pp. Mayer, Peter C., "The Visitor Industry on Guam", Vol. II, The Social— Economic Impact of Modern Technology Upon a Developing Insular Region: Guam (Agana: University of Guam Press, 1975) pp. III—33—A2. McDonald, James B., Guam Annual Economic Review 1975 (Agana: Department Of Commerce, 1976) 6A pp. Oxford Economic Atlas Of the World, 3rd edition (London: Oxford University Press, 1965). Pray, Martin, "Growth and Effect of Air Charters on Guam's Tourist Industry," PASA, Vol. 1, NO. 2 (Agana: Pacific Asian Studies Association, 1976) pp. 5-19. Randall, Richard H. and L.G. Eldredge, Atlas of the Reefs of Guam (Agana: Bureau Of Planning, 1976) 190 pp. A Reinman, Fred M., "Guam Prehistory: A Preliminary Field Report," Prehistoric Culture in Oceania (Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, 1968) pp. Al-50. Russell, Walter E., "Soil Survey of Lalo Farm, Mangilao, Guam," Micronesica, Vol. 2 (Agana: University Of Guam, 1965) pp. 77—85- Safford, William E., The Useful Plants of Guam, U.S. National Herbarium, Vol. IX (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian, 1905) A16 pp. Sailing Directions for the Pacific Islands (2nd edition), Vol. 1, H.O. Pub. NO. 82 (Washington: U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office, 196A) A53 pp. Solenberger, Robert R., "The Changing Role of Rice in the Marianas Islands," Micronesica, Vol. 3, NO. 2 (Agana, Guam: University Of Guam, 1967) pp. 97-103. Souder, Paul B., "Guam: Land Tenure in a Fortress," in Land Tenure in the Pacific, edited by Ron Crocombe (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1971) pp. 192-205. Spoehr, Alexander, "Marianas Prehistory, Archaeological Survey and Excavation on Saipan, Tinian, and Rota," Fieldiana: Anthropo— logy, Vol. A8 (Chicago: Chicago National History Museum, 1957) 187 PP- SRI, A Study and Review of Laws Pertaining to Alien Investment on Guam, Vol. 1 (Menlo Park: Stanford Research Institute, 197A) 287 pp. Statistical Abstract, Guam, 19731 (Agana: Department of Commerce, Government of Guam, 197A) A8 pp. Sterling, Jeanne B., "Report on Eating Habits of Junior High School Students," (Agana: Department Of Public Health and Social Services, 1976) 6 pp., unpublished. Tansill, William R., "Guam and Its Administration," Public Affairs Bulletin, NO. 95 (Washington: Legislative Reference Service, 1951) 1A0 pp. Thompson, Laura, Guam and Its People (Princeton, N.J.,: Princeton University Press, 19A7) 367 pp. , The Native Culture Of the Mariana Islands, Bulletin 185 (Honolulu: Bishop Museum, 19A5) A8 pp. , Archaeology of the Mariana Islands, NO. 100 (Honolulu: Bishop Museum, 1932) 82 pp. 5 Tracey, Joshua I., Jr., et. al., General Geology of Guam, U.S.G.S. Professional Paper A03—A (Washington, Government Printing Office, 196A) 10A pp. Underwood, Jane, "The Native Origins of the NeO—Chamorros of the Mariana Islands," Micronesica, Vol. 12, NO. 2 (Agana: University Of Guam, 1976) pp. 203-210. , "Population History Of Guam: Context of Micro— evolution," Micronesica, Vol. 9, NO. 1 (Agana: University Of Guam, 1973) Pp. 11—A5. U.S. National Park Service, Proposed Guam National Seashore (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1967) 59 PP., unpublished. Vail, Carl J., Jr., "The Economy," The Social—Economic Impact of Modern Technology Upon a Developing Insular Region: Guam, Vol. II (Agana: University of Guam Press, 1975) pp. III-l-18. Wilson, Walter Scott, "Historical Summary of Cultural Influences on the People of Guam," Vol. III, Part VI, The Social-Economic Impact of Modern Technology Upon a Developing Insular Region: Guam (Agana: University of Guam Press, 1975) pp. VI—9l-96. , and McGrath, William, A., "The Marshall, Caroline and Mariana Islands," in R. Crocombe, editor, Land Tenure in the Pacific (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1969) pp. 172— 191. , Land Activity and Social Organization of Lelu, Kusaie, "COpra Making," pp. 103—105, (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, 1968) A52 pp. , "The Copra Industry in the Trust Territory Of the Pacific Islands," Appendix 8, Report Of a Special Subcommittee on Territorial and Insular Affairs Of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House Of Representatives, 83rd Congress, (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1955) pp. 68—73. , "The Copra Industry in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands," Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 3, NO. 3 (Noumea, New Caledonia: South Pacific Commission, 1953) pp. 33_3A. Yawata, Ichiro, "Rice Cultivation of the Ancient Marianas Islanders," Plants and the Migrations Of Pacific Peoples, A Symposium (Honolulu: Bishop Museum, 1963) pp. 91—92. HICHIGQN STATE UNIV. LIBRQRIES 1|I1|(HIW(IllHIHWIIWIHWIII)illlmlHlHlllHlHI 31293101793895