STATE POLICY ON IRRIGATION

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27374, 12 June 1954, Page 8

STATE POLICY ON IRRIGATION

Mr Goosman Agrees To Changes RATES NOT TO BE INCREASED Several modifications of his statement on Government irrigation policy were agreed to by the Minister of Works (Mr W. S. Goosman) during a two-hour discussion he had at Ashburton yesterday with farmers from the Mayfield-Hinds scheme. The most important were that the date, September 30, 1954. set as the day for raising the contract price of water, was waived, and that present rates are to oe continued. *The Minister said that it appeared to the Government that irrigation was developing slowly, that it was losing money because of slow development, and that it had a duty to protect the public money put into the schemes. He assured the deputation that the Government would do all in its power to encourage irrigation. After Mr R. G. Gerard, M.P., had introduced the farmers, the Minister said that with £3,000.000 spent on irrigation development by the Government, and a net loss of £621,000 in the working accounts, irrigation had cost the neople of the country something approaching £4,000.000. When the schemes were not being used to any appreciable extent, and were developing slowly, the State must begin to take an interest to see whether it could get some reasonable return from its outlay. Mr A. Hugh Sim, who led the deputation, said that farmers on the scheme had been pressing for contracts at the present rates, but had never been able to get them. “Is the proposal, then, that you want to sign contracts at that rate?” asked the Minister. “We would be very pleased to do so,” said Mr Sim, “but we think it is important to have the contract at 4s an acre over half the farm, and not 2s an acre over the whole farm. The scheme is designed to cover only half the area.” Mr W. F. Young, Assistant-Commis-sioner of Works, said that the quantity of water available could be increased. Setting of Date

Mr Sim said that irrigators felt that setting a date before which contracts must be made was an attempt to force farmers into the scheme, and Mr Goosman agreed that the date should be removed. “Will that mean that water will be available on demand at 6s?” asked Mr Sim. “No, I shouldn’t think sd,” said the Minister. “The man on contract would not agree to others coming in perhaps every third year at 6s when it was dry. We might not be able to supply water.” Mr Young said that it would help if the farmers could give the department some idea of how much water would be needed, so that water could be budgeted for. Provision must be made for the man starting irrigating, said Mr D. MacKenzie. and a reasonable demand rate would help him to feel his way. The original proposition was that results could be obtained by putting water on to any sort of land, said Mr Sim. Experience had proved that land must first be brought to a reasonable level of fertility undpr dryland methods before irrigation could be used profitably. Farmers" at present not irrigating were not necessarily against irrigation, but for reasons of their own, felt that they could not at present tackle irrigation development. Mr Goosman: You say your are keen to sign contracts? Mr Sim: Yes, provided we are not thereby tacitly accepting the rating principle in 1964 mentioned in your policy statement. There was nothing in the present contracts to say there must be rating in 1964. said the Minister. “I said that the Government would not agree to further schemes unless some basis was reached for recovering reasonable expenses. I can’t see anything that will stop you people negotiating new contracts in 1964. We have laid' down nothing for existing schemes.” The assurance the Minister had given would encourage a great many more people to irrigate, said Mr McKenzie. Capacity of Schemes The Capacity of the schemes to meet increased demand for was discussed at some length, but the Minister assured the deputation that the Government would supply the water needed. Rating authorities had been suggested by the inter-departmental committee on irrigation as the best means of controlling new schemes, said the Minister. His view was that an irrigation scheme was much the same in essence as a drainage scheme, except that water was put on to the land instead of being taken off. It was Government policy to encourage local administration of such local amenities. Mr Sim asked whether the rating principle would apply to MayfieldHinds in 1964. “That is going a long way ahead,” said the Minister. “The recommendation is that it wouldn’t apply to existing schemes. We are going for local control, and the local people will decide.” Mr N. Kelly (Ashburton-Winch-more) said that farmers in his scheme were very concerned at the Minister’s suggestion that the contract rate

should be doubled. People should be given more time to get on to contracts at the present rate. “Both sides want more irrigation used,” said Mr' C. Hilgendorf. “We feel that we are being forced into contracts, and that will keep people out. The main difference of opinion between us seems to be over the rate of development. Our experience has been that the quicker the development, the more trouble there is. The Government will have to face losses in the initial years, and the initial years will be long ones.”

The Minister said that he would like the Ashburton-Lyndhurst contracts to be left in the meantime. “We will give them a jolly good look over,” he said. “It is no good working against each other. I can see the force of your argument.” In thanking the Minister for meeting the farmers, Mr Gerrard said there would be relief among irrigators that the Minister’s statement did not mean what it appeared to mean. ,