IRRIGATION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIX, Issue 11559, 21 April 1898, Page 6

IRRIGATION.

TO THE EDITOB. ' f Sib, —It is indeed almost incredible that practical fanners like Messrs Osborne and Wibhell should talk in the way they are reported to-day on the subject of irrigation. The article “ Irrigation and Profit,” in your issue -of March 30, should convince any fairlybalanced mind as to the margin "between “ cost ” and “ prospective return. ” Has Mr Osborne seen Mr M’Gregor’s fannat Norwood? If not, it is exeeedongly ill-advised his making such unfounded remarks and so at variance with the facts. It can be clearly shown that the loss to Canterbury through this drought has exceeded the total cost of irrigation works for this district, and there has practically been no year that irrigation would not have been of great value for a month or more when grass, roots or grain were suffering. Mr 'Withell’s remarks regarding pumping from the present waterraces in “ exceptionally dry seasons ” are simply ridiculous, and it seems quite superfluous for him to say they need have “no fears of a superabundant supply.” Has Mr Withell ’ worked out the volume of a good race? Two million gallons per day would be a very strong race, but even this race, serving a district, say, half a mile broad by ten miles long, would only irrigate the whole ground once in three months with an amount equal to three inches of rainfall.—l am. &c., 4s 6d F. 0.8.