SEEPAGE AREA AT SEADOWN

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23364, 25 June 1941, Page 6

SEEPAGE AREA AT SEADOWN

Further Reply To Mr Armstrong VIEW OF SETTLERS The claim that if the Minister for Public Works (the Hon. H. T. Armstrong) inspected the drainage and seepage at the Seadown area of the Levels irrigation scheme he would agree with the settlers that they should not contribute a penny more until their farms are brought back to productivity, is made in a letter to “The Press” by Mr W. Cargo, writing as secretary to the Seadown-Levels Seepage Committee.

"The Minister accuses the settlers of political bias or unwilling to carry out their contracts. The first accusation,” said Mr Cargo, "is unworthy of notice and is only a smoke screen to hide the main issue. It is unfortunate that the Minister used the second, as he evidently has no knowledge of the true position. The Minister’s predecessor, the Hon. R. Semple, promised the settlers three years ago that if the scheme cost more than £IO,OOO the Government would not call on the settlers for more, but the present Minister asked for another £SOO from them for an extension costing only £2500. The settlers considered they were being victimised, and as the scheme is only a partial success the ratepayers refused to sign for anything. "If the Minister would inspect this area for himself we feel sure he would be amazed at its deplorable condition and would agree with us that we should not be asked to contribute one penny until our farms are brought back to their full producing capacity after three years of non-production and deterioration. "We notice that the Minister now says the £2500 was not conditional on the ratepayers finding £SOO. This is the first the settlers have heard of this. We are unable to find any connexion between the fact that some settlers along the sea coast have : applied for drainage at different periods during the last 40 years and the payment and maintenance of this scheme or Its efficiency. The Minister doubts that all our troubles are due to seepage from _ irrigation. If he would inspect this area now after two and a half years of exceptionally low rainfall, his doubts would be dispelled. He again doubts the accuracy of the rushes in the photograph. This paddock is not near the beach as suggested by him, but is within 30 chains of an irrigation race, was cut for hay four years ago, and threshed 36 bushels of wheat to the acre six years ago in a wet season. It is part of a farm revalued six months ago, the unimproved value of which has been reduced from £2B an acre in 1930 to £l3 an acre and the producing value reduced accordingly. As this' case is only one of many, we ask the Minister is there any reason other than the actions of his own department, for this alarming reduction in value? If so, we ask him to state them. , ’ "Are the occupiers of these properties the men the Minister accuses of being saboteurs of the national effort? He mentions the drag lines required mattresses when men were constructing the drains in many parts. They would require the same to-day over a large portion of this area. He mentions that the races are gradually tightening up and that the water reaching the lower areas is gradually becoming less. That statement cannot be borne out by facts, as the flooding in this area is as serious as ever, \ . „ "The Minister’s advice to the he blamed for engineering the demonstration is to get busy and honour their agreement, etc. We assure the Minister that the settlers in this area have always done so and will continue to do so, if the Minister will honour the agreement entered into with his predecessor to restore our lands to their former state of productivity.” -