Survey Shows No Certain Benefit From Irrigation

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30153, 10 June 1963, Page 10

Survey Shows No Certain Benefit From Irrigation

The Minister of Works, Mr Goosman, has given a committee of the Irrigation Development Association, which is representative of farmers on the Ashburton-Lyndhurst irrigation scheme, an assurance that no action will be taken to fix new water charges for farmers in the scheme until a full investigation has been made, at Government level, of a report on the comparative profitability and productivity of a sample of irrigated and non-irrigated farms in the area.

This was stated at the week-end by the chairman of the association, Mr H. G. Morris, who was a member of a committee appointed by irrigators which met the minister in Wellington on Friday to present the report, which has been prepared at the instigation of the farmers, by the farm management and rural valuation department of Lincoln College. Mr Morris said that Mr Goosman had given the assurance in reply to a question from the Minister of Lands, Mr Gerard, who was present at the meeting. Mr Goosman had said that the impact of the survey was such that no action would be taken pending the investigation. Survey The survey, which involved 65 irrigated farms on light land, 43 non-irrigated farms on light land and 22 irrigated and non-irrigated farms on medium land, consistently showed that the net return or owners’ surplus on irrigated farms did not exceed that being achieved on non-irri-gated farms, and there was even' some indication that the reverse might apply. Nor did the survey indicate that there was a greater capital investment on irrigated farms that might mask the relative returns obtained under the two systems of farming. It appeared, according to the survey, that for the class of land and climate covered by the investigation, for the

type of farming practised and under existing technological conditions, irrigation did not systematically confer economic gains on the farmer and on the basis of this research there appeared to be no grounds for increasing water charges on irrigated farms if the criterion used in fixing the charges was any difference in the profitability between the two systems of farming. The Minister of Transport. Mr McAlpine, who also attended the meeting with the minister, said that although there might be little financial incentive to the individual, the country benefited by irrigation through an increased level of economic activity and production, so the important question was whether the cost of irrigation should be an individual or national one. More Production

The survey indicated that while net returns might be no greater under irrigation the value of production on intensively irrigated properties was 50 per cent, higher than on randomly selected dry land farms and 35 per cent, higher than on a group of high-performing dry land farms Mr Morris told the Minister that the association had never agreed with the confident and optimistic statements made from time to time by the .Department of Agriculture, the Ministry of Works and the Canterbury Progress League about the doubling of production and greatly increased financial returns to the individual irrigator.

Neither did it agree with the findings and recommendations of the Parliamentary select committee on irrigation because it was felt that these conclusions were reached without adequate statistical confirmation.

As contracts with farmers in the area were due to expire last April it was felt that before any new contracts were made a survey should be made by an independent body of the profitability and productivity of irrigated and non-irrigated farms. At a general meeting of 'farmers it had been decided to ask Lincoln College to make this survey as an unbiased, independent academic body with the necessary qualified staff

. . . Most of the cost of the survey had been met by the 125 farmers concerned and their enthusiasm and willingness to bear this cost and the response of both irrigation and non-irrigation farmers had fully justified the action' of the association in initiating the survey. Concern

As enthusiastic and experienced irrigators they felt that the figures in the report relating to the heavier irrigator were alarming, said Mr Morris. They showed that financial incentive to increase production was lacking, yet as they all knew increased production was vitally important to the country.

Mr Morris said that the Minister had agreed to meet the association at a future date after the investigations had been made by the Government.

Members of the committee who met the Minister Included Messrs A. E. P Kilian and P. C. Curd, as well as Mr Morris. Dr. J. D. Stewart, senior lecturer in farm management at Lincoln College, who was the principal author of the report, was also present. Mr Morris said that most 'valuable assistance had been given to the association by Mr Gerard, who had been in touch with the association throughout the preparation of the report and up to its presentation.