THE PRESS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1982. Water on troubled soils

Press, 28 October 1982, Page 16

THE PRESS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1982. Water on troubled soils

Irrigation is charfging the face of Canterbury farmland, relieving many farmers from the uncertainties of drought, allowing higher cropping and stocking rates, and boosting productivity. The changes announced by the Government to the methods of giving assistance from the public purse for irrigation schemes should accelerate this change. Eventually the whole province should benefit. The more intensive use of land that is made possible by irrigation might mean more jobs on the farm and should boost the industries serving the farms and processing their output. By getting water to the right place at the right time, the dividends should flow through most sectors of the province’s economy.

Two changes will have the most immediate impact when the new system applies at the end of the month. Loans will not be restricted to community irrigation schemes; they will 'not be restricted to border dyke irrigation. This should allow individual farms and small groups of farmers to get the benefits of irrigation without the delays and complications that have attended getting community schemes off the ground. It will also encourage spray and trickle irrigation that in some instances, particularly for smaller schemes, are more suitable than border dykes.

Until now, funding for irrigation schemes has come from two Government departments, the Rural Bank and the Ministry of Works and Development. The Ministry of Works and Development will relinquish to the Rural Bank this part of its role in irrigation development. Money will be transferred from the Ministry’s vote to the bank this year to cover the shift in roles. This streamlining of procedures should speed the approval of suitable schemes and allow more land to be irrigated more quickly. ’ .

The Government has also indicated a willingness to make more money available for irrigation. Although finance is only one constraint on the development of irrigation schemes, it is a big one. At present 13 separate irrigation schemes are under construction in Canterbury. Together they will irrigate more than 45,000 hectares and will cost $44.8 million. Three more have been investigated and the costs have been put at a further $23.5 million. Still under investigation is the Central Plains scheme, with a tentative cost of more than $lOO million.

The size of these figures shows that the rate of new irrigation will depend on money available; it will also depend on how the money can be best apportioned. A few big schemes could absorb so much that

little would be left for the many smaller schemes that the Government believes will be encouraged by the new system. Conversely, meeting the requirements of many small schemes could mean that the residue in the irrigation fund, while still substantial, would not be sufficient to pay for a large scheme which, hectare for hectare, might be more efficient. This is just one of the balancing acts that will be required under the new system. Another balancing act will be required of catchment and regional water boards. The change in irrigation policy is likely to mean a rush of applications for water rights for schemes that have become eligible for loan money for the first time. Deciding on whether to grant these requires a comprehensive assessment of ground water supplies and the likely-; competing claims for them. Until such an assessment is completed, some delays could occur in approving water rights and, consequently, in getting the benefits of the new system. Nevertheless, it is likely that a small scheme could be working in about two years from the time the first steps are taken, compared with eight to 10 years from the conception to the commissioning of the larger schemes.

The Government will reduce its contribution to the headworks and distribution systems for community schemes from 100 per cent to 70 per cent. Landholders in these schemes are being asked to pay a bigger share. Their contribution to the necessary construction outside their properties will bear interest and will be recovered through water charges. This is an acceptable extension of the user-pay principle. The 50 per cent suspensory loan that has been available for irrigation works on farms has been abolished. Instead, repayment of principal and interest on loans for on-farm work will be deferred for three years.

The net effect should be that farms will have to generate income to pay for the irrigation and the taxpayers’ contribution, even a temporary contribution, will not be a way of increasing the capital value of farms at public expense. Irrigation, like electricity supplies, reading, railways, and other public services, may increase the value of properties; irrigation will have to pay its way.

One effect of the two changes might be the slower development of community schemes, or the abandonment of plans for some of them, in favour of smaller schemes-. This would fit in with the thrust of the new policy, which was prompted by representations from farmers. This should also improve rather than imperil the prospects of getting more production as soon as possible.