Support For Extension Of Irrigation

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32265, 7 April 1970, Page 26

Support For Extension Of Irrigation

N o r th Canterbury Federated Farmers supports the extension of irrigation in North Canterbury, provided there is a high degree of Government participation and that it can be shown that irrigation would restore profitability to farming.

The branch said this in submissions to the irrigation committee of the Water Allocation Council, which sat in Christchurch yesterday.

The provisional president (Mr W. N. Dunlop) and Mr P. G. Morrison appeared in support of the submissions, which stressed that there was an urgent need for more eduaction, research and extension in the economics of irrigation. The committee is headed by Mr D. S. G. Marchbanks and includes Messrs A. D. Talbot. G. H. Blundell, A. C. Begg and A. L. Kearton. It Is looking into irrigation as compared with other forms of investment in agriculture, the financing and administration of irrigation schemes, the granting of water rights and such other matters as it sees fit.

Without irrigation there was little scope for increased production in the low variable rainfall areas between the foothills and the coast, said Federated Farmers. In fact many farmers were now facing extreme difficulty in maintaining production at its present level and livestock numbers were declining. National Need

To meet the national need for increased export earnings from primary produce and the individual need to restore profitability to farming, farmers in North Canterbury had to increase production and net return per acre while retaining soil fertility. Irrigation was the one means available of achieving these objectives. The obvious benefits of irrigation had, however, to be weighed against the capital, maintenance and operating

costs. This aspect had to be thoroughly investigated before it could be said categorically that Irrigation was an economic proposition to the farmer and nation, unless, of course, the need for additional primary produce for export was accepted as being of paramount importance to the nation. Federated Farmers said there were, in fact, no other major investment opportunities in dry land farming without irrigation. The construction costs of Irrigation schemes, it was submitted, appeared clearly to be a Government responsibility, but maintenance and operating costs could well be the responsibility of users. Such costs, however, should not be expected to return interest on the investment,

which should be regarded as being in the same category as highways and similar Government expenditure. Irrigation Associations

It is not considered that administration of irrigation schemes was a local body function. They should be administered by irrigation associations representing primarily the users and sponsors, with only a small minority of local body representation. The granting of irrigation rights when competition existed for use of water, it was suggested, should be determined as a matter of national policy and should not be left to regional water boards to set their own policies. The rights of existing users should be preserved where they did not conflict with the national interest