NO PILOT IRRIGATION SCHEME

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30901, 6 November 1965, Page 10

NO PILOT IRRIGATION SCHEME

Landowners in the Lower Waitaki Valley are greatly distressed that the Government has in the meantime declined to provide upwards of £5OOO for the establishment of a pilot scheme in their area to obtain certain information before irrigation can be extended to the district. In a letter to “The Press” this week Mr R. G. Richards, chairman of the Morven-Glenavy Irrigation Committee, says that farmers in the area would even be prepared to lend the Government some of the money for this purpose.

Mr Richards writes: “It is with interest one ' reads of the pleas, plans and : exhortations that originate , from Government circles :

about the need to increase primary production. But the facts set out hereunder give rise to serious doubts as to the sincerity of the men who do the exhorting, or their ability to understand that the

answer to the balance of payments problems lies to a large extent in the country’s ability to export more farm produce. “That this argument of increased farm production as a means of solving our problems is a valid one I can do no better than refer to Professor Cumberland’s remarks as published so fully in your edition of Thursday, October 28. Here is a man who has no axe to grind giving a masterly exposition of the facts. “A committee representing landowners of an area of 25,000 acres in the lower Waitaki Valley on the north side of the river have been, for the last eight months, striving for an investigation into the possibility of irrigating this area.

“We were told by experts in the field of irrigation that it was feasible to irrigate this area but that a ‘pilot scheme’ within the area was necessary to obtain information relating to cost, amount of water required, and the labour input necessary. Properly “Part of a farm property, typical of the area, was made available and is still available, for the above pilot scheme. “The finance for initial development, approximately £5OOO, part of which was to be met by the farmer concerned, was verbally promised by the Minister of Works to a group comprising members of the Irrigation Committee, the local member of Parliament, the department’s field officer and the chairman of the local branch of the National Party, also a farmer in the area.

“Now we have received advice that the Government finds itself unable to find this pitifully small sum of money. This letter was signed by the Director-General of Agriculture, Mr D. N. R. Webb, who is on record also in your issue of Thursday, October 28, as saying ‘There is a new look in New Zealand agriculture but there is no room for complacency—we cannot look back,’ and further in the same article, ‘Let us keep on thinking progressively and ensure that every £1 we spend yields us some, return.’

“That a return would come from this investment is borne out by the statement of Mr W. R. Lobb at the opening of the Upper Waitaki irrigation scheme that ‘on the three major irrigation schemes in the Mid Canterbury area returns on the investment are about 23 per cent on capital

cost as well as interest.’ Surely 23 per cent should satisfy Mr Webb, but he declines to take the initiative. Perhaps he would indicate where he intends to invest this money and the rate of interest he expects to get? “The purpose of this letter is to bring to the public notice:

“(a) The muddled actions and thinking that exist in Government circles on this vital issue of primary production and increase of exports to solve our recurring balance of payments problems.

“(b) That here are a group of farmers ready and anxious to increase production and earn more overseas funds and also return more to the Inland Revenue Department. While perhaps not very happy about the latter they are nevertheless prepared, in Winston Churchill’s words, “to do the job if they are given the tools.’ “There are even farmers in the area who would be prepared to lend some of the money to the Government at current rates of interest if they find themselves in such dire straits that they cannot raise the full amount themselves.

“I feel that no country, least of all New Zealand, can afford the luxury of having 25,000 acres of flat, light land with a rainfall of barely 20 inches carrying two ewes per acre, and because of climatic conditions and soil type capable of only two ewes and a half per acre under dry land farming. Mr Lobb is quoted as stating that the potential of irrigated pasture in Canterbury is six or seven ewes per acre. Justification “If the outlay of a few thousand pounds necessary to obtain the information to implement an irrigation scheme in this area, with all its benefits to the individual and the nation is denied, surely much other Government spending must be hard to justify. “The farmers of this area are simply asking for the tool to increase production. “If the Government still thinks the export of primary produce is our only means of economic salvation, 1 suggest the time has come for some positive action to achieve our goals, and I believe the farmers of this area are being denied the means of achieving this goal.”