IRRIGATION.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1355, 30 September 1886, Page 3

IRRIGATION.

Some months ago a very valuable and interesting series of papers upon a scheme for the thorough irrigation of our plains was prepared by Mr C. E. Fooks, and published in the columns of the Gvaidian, and subsequently a very exhaustive and able report on the same subject was piesented to the Irrigation Committee of the County Council by Mr Baxter, the County Engineer. Mr Baxter’s facts and figures showed conclusively that the work could be carried out for a sum which would represent a very small cost per acre, and one which it is reasonable to suppose would be recouped three or four times over by the benefits which must certainly follow from the increase of the productive power of the land, and the scheme propounded by that officer received the approval of the Committee, and afterwards of the full Council. Then came the necessary appeal to the ratepayers for their sanction and concurrence, and several meetings have been held with a view to the discussion of the Council’s proposals. And there for the present the matter seems to have rested, for we have heard of no meetings being held lately, nor of any further step being taken. We trust the Council intends to push on with the matter, and to submit definite proposals to the vote, in order that it may be in a position to carry out at least a portion of the scheme without loss of time. Of course, the sanction of the ratepayers has first to be obtained, and we are sorry to hear doubts expressed as to that sanction being given. It appears that a number of our settlers are apprehensive of the work being very much more cosily than is contemplated, and of being saddled wish special rates for irrigation works without adequate returns, and it is natural in these difficult times that prudent men should require to be absolutely assured as to the results that may safely be expected before sanctioning an outlay which, whether small or large, must mean some addition to their annual outgoings. But once assured upon these points, we are persuaded that the settlers themselves would push on the County Council, and be anxious that the work should’ be completed as speedily as possible. Would it not be well, then, for the Council to convince the ratepayers as to the soundness of the scheme proposed by demonstrating on a small scale the cost of the work and the results which are to be looked for ? This could easily be done by applying it ta a small block of land of a hundred acres or so, which could be put under clover and root crops, ?and divided into alternate blocks, one half of which to be subjected to the irrigation process, and the other left to the natural conditions. The results would show conclusively what the cost of irrigating would be per acre and whether the increased produce would defray the interest on the outlay and leave a profit to the good. Judging from the experience of other countries, we have no doubt that the benefit of irrigation would be so conclusively proved that there would no longer be the slightest hesitation about sanctioning the undertaking proposed by the Council, but that the ratepayers of the county would be even more in earnest about the matter than the Council itself. Should it be objected that the Council has not the power to sanction expenditure in such a work, we may reply that we think it has. Under section 291 of the Counlies Act, 1886, the Council “may apply any portion of its funds to the establishment of model farms, and to the purchase of ull necessary lands, buildings, implements of all sorts, and live stock, to be used for or in connection there with.” This appears to fully cover the present suggestion, which we venture to commend to the Council’s consideration.