Irrigators’ Views On Use Of Water

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32274, 17 April 1970, Page 6

Irrigators’ Views On Use Of Water

It was apparent from submissions made in Canterbury last week to the Committee of the Water Allocation Council, which is in the process of looking into irrigation policies, that while irrigation is unquestionably a splendid method of increasing agricultural production for the national good and for the benefit of the area where it is practised, there are still very strong doubts in the minds of some experienced irrigators whether for the extra effort and cost involved on their part under existing conditions they are much, if at all. better off than their colleagues on drv land.

An irrigation farmer on the Ashburton-Lyndhurst scheme, Mr C M. Hill, had this to say in submissions made on his own behalf to the committee: “I feel that irrigation must and should expand, but as things are today it seems that more enthusiasm for irrigation is expressed by dryland farmers than the present irrigation farmers. In other words the irrigation farmer knows that the green grass he has in the middle of a drought is only there through considerable effort and expense on his part, whereas the dryland farmer sees that same green grass and feels that all he needs to solve his problems is a little water so as to turn his own grass green. “I have heard of farmers selling their ‘dry’ farm, buying an irrigated one, then selling this and going back to dry. I have never heard of a farmer going from irrigation to dry and back to irrigation. This speaks for itself." Mr H. G. Morris, chairman of the Ashburton-Lyndhurst Irrigation Development Association, said that they were on a scheme which was the first large irrigation development in Canterbury. As it had developed his association had felt that too little was known about the economics of farming under inigation and in 1962 it had asked the department of farm management and rural valuation at Lincoln College to conduct a survey into the comparative profit-

ability and productivity of irrigated and non-irrigated

farms in the area. This was the only report of research in this field and showed that irrigation, although it increased production, did not confer a net gain in profitability on a farm.

“No evidence to the contrary has been produced and no conclusions of this research have been disproved,” Mr Morris commented. After a meeting in 1966, when the potential of irrigation had been discussed, Mr Morris said, the Minister of Works had asked the Department of Agriculture to investigate the potential of irrigation, giving facts and figures, but the department had found that it was not feasible to produce specific answers. The report prepared, based on a number of case studies, had been said to be confidential and his association had been given no facts or figures. Mr Morris said that nationally cheap water was a paying proposition. The added production from irrigation more than compensated for cheap water, both in overseas earnings and in the development of local social amenities. This was a case where the Government could combine with the farmer in a national venture. They submitted that as increased production was of national importance irrigation schemes should be operated by the Government, which should carry the whole capital cost as was done in Australia.

The largest markets still offering were for wool and

meat so that production of grass under irrigation was the only direction in which farmers could go in a big way. Unfortunately, howewer, production of grass under irrigation as a medium to grow meat and wool at present levels of income was too expensive. High costs represented a reduction in farmers’ ability to reinvest in their properties. This was incompatible with the Government’s desire to sharply increase the growth of agriculture, which could only come from increased investment as had been emphasised by the Agricultural Development Conference. In submissions on behalf of the Mayfield-Hinds Irrigation Association its chairman, Mr J. Jones, said that the Stewart report had been dismissed by the Minister on the grounds that it was a 'factual picture of the position at the time, but that it failed to take into account the potential of intensive development. The irrigation associations had asked that the department should give its views on the potential of irrigation, but after two years of study by the Department of Agriculture they had been advised that It had not been found feasible to produce specific answers to the question.

Mr Jones said that the conclusion of a survey carried out in the Valetta area of Mid-Canterbury by the economic section of the farm advisory division of the Department of Agriculture for the years from 1981 to 1964 had been: “In other words irrigation development by substituting irrigation for dry-land farming is justified in terms of increased meat and wool production for overseas earnings, but it cannot be justified in terms of financial returns as an investment for the individual farmer.” This conclusion had been reached after a detailed survey which showed that the returns on capital for the three years concerned were 4.31 per cent, 4.31 per cent, and 6.34 per cent This was at a time when the average prices for wools of 465/50s count were 30c, 33c and 40c per lb respectively. In more recent years prices had been of the order of 23c, 28c, and this year about 22c, and if devaluation was also taken into account the recent price level was about 19c or about 50 per cent of the auction price when the survey conclusion was made. This, then, was the value of irrigation as an investment to the farmers concerned.

But, looking at what Irrigation of Valetta had meant to the community and nation, Mr Jones said that whereas an area of 9359 acres in 1950 was, carrying 2800 ewes and 1500 hoggets,. after intensive development under irrigation stock carrying had been raised to 25,000 ewes and 6500 hoggets, with individual farms carrying nearly four ewe' equivalents per acre. This increased production, he said, had been achieved for the capital expenditure by the nation 1 of $7 per ewe equivalent, for a capital asset which would have a life of perhaps 100 years. “We believe that irrigation is a good national investment, not only for the increased volume of production that it brings, but also because it enables a region to have a better balance of production and it also helps to stabilise markets in the event of droughts in the district,” Mr Jones continued. “You might well ask,” he added, “why irrigate this light land if it cannot carry the cost burden? The alternative is to shift irrigation schemes to heavier land capable of much greater returns and capacity to service the debt charges. “We contend that in the foreseeable future this land will continue to produce crops such as wheat, barley

and linseed which have no export prospects. Additional production of lamb, mutton, wool and beef from irrigated light land will continue to be readily saleable for export,” he said. The scheme under which members bf their association were working had been constructed later that other Schemes in Mid-Canterbury, the secretary, Mr G, K. Campbell, said for the Vai-etta-Tinwald Irrigation Association, and was said to operate under conditions Which were laid down by the Government as policy for new schemes. After the completion of the first 10 years from 1958 to 1968, known as the development period, Mr Campbell said ,they had been told that, if anything, there was justification for a slight rise in their water prices but that they would, in fact, be left at the same level—that was i $1.20 per acre contracted, with extra water being at the rate of 45c per acre foot. The members of the association- had subsequently resolved that the charges should be 70c an acre and and 45c an acre foot for extra water, it being considered that the scheme would be able to pay its own way at those prices. However, no progress had been made, in that the Ministry of Works was adhering to its view on the one

hand and members of their association to their interpretation of the facts on the other.

Mr Campbell said that the majority of the members of the association had been settled in the area as irrigation farmers and about double the use was made of water on this scheme than on the others, with more than half of the 17,253 acres 1 served by it having already been border dyked. | Referring to the Depart-i ment of Agriculture's survey of the area, Mr Campbell pointed out that stocking rate had not increased I between 1961 and 1967,! operating costs had beenj found to be high, irrig-j tion had been found diffi-! cult because very frequent! applications of water were necessary if pasture growth I was to be maintained it | took about three weeks to j cover 200 acres and this meant that there was twice too long an Interval between irrigations, particularly in dry periods—the soil moisture level could fall from field capacity to wilting point in 10 days following irrigation, automatic irrigation was essential if the scheme was to be efficient and profitable but it was! clear that this could not be ■ done out of revenue and the | problems were not technical but ones of economy be-1 cause of the smallness ofi the holdings.