Irrigation

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27375, 14 June 1954, Page 8

Irrigation

The Minister of Works (Mr Goosman) has made important

concessions to farmers in the Ashburton irrigation area. They are not to be hurried into signing contracts to take water on pain of having to pay very much higher charges if they delay, and they are not to be forced into adopting the rating system of irrigation finance in another 10 years. At worst, these concessions are not likely to be very costly for the Government. Spread over the life of the irrigation works, the amount of revenue that will be lost in the next 10 years or so will scarcely be significant. On the other hand, these concessions may be good business for the Government, if, as seems likely from the discussion at Ashburton, they promote the cooperation of landowners in developing the use of irrigation water. If this is the result of the concessions, it may ensure that in 10 years the arrangement the Minister has agreed to forego now will be acceptable to the farmers, or that some acceptable alternative will be as suitable to the Government. The Government’s wish to put this irrigation scheme on the same orderly and economic footing as others now proposed is understandable; but there was always the danger in it that at the end of 10 years farmers might have

had imposed on them something they had had no chance of approving. Although there was probably not much real danger of this, the fear that it might happen would encourage resistance to the whole idea of irrigation. It is important to prevent this resistance, because irrigation must be extended if Canterbury production is to be increased substantially. In effect, the Government has now given to the Ashburton county landowners the responsibility for speeding development. The Minister, during his Canterbury visit, also confirmed the tentative cost of the proposed new schemes. The time must have almost arrived when the Government should set out in firmer and fuller detail its irrigation proposals in both old and new areas, so that farmers can plainly what can be done, and how it is to be paid for. It has not been easy to follow the development of the Government’s policy that some reasonable contribution from farmers towards the total cost of irrigation should be assured, either by contract, as the Ashburton farmers at present prefer, or by rating. The policy itself is essentially sound, but if the enthusiasm • of farmers is to be enlisted it must be fully understood.