The Temuka Leader. THURSDAY. OCTOBER 29, 1885. WAITOHI WATER-SUPPLY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1411, 29 October 1885, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. THURSDAY. OCTOBER 29, 1885. WAITOHI WATER-SUPPLY.

It would appear from what occurred at the meeting held at Waitohi last Friday evening that a large number of the settlers in that district are opposed to the Water-Supply Scheme. No one has any right to find fault with them for it ; they ought to know their own business beat, and no doubt they do. The main thing that appeared to trouble them was the cost of it. Thi principal exponent of the views of those who were opposed to the scheme said We want the water but we cannot afford it,” In the present condition of agriculture farmers cannot be blamed if they look twice before involving themselves m any fresh liability. There can be no doubt but that the times are hard, and that it ia necessary to practice economy to keep afloat. To pat the matter from the above point of view, however, appears to us not exactly the correct way of looking at it. Mr Talbot showed that after allowing a liberal margin for any contingencies which might arise, the cost of the Water-Supply would not exceed L2 lOs per 100 acres. The question is, Will the Water-Supply make L2 10« d.Serene* in the annual value of 100 acrea ?—Will it make the land more productive?—-Will it feed more sheep and cattle ?—Will the convenience of having a atresia of water running through the land save time and trouble to the value of the money ?—These are the questions those who doubt the expediency of the scheme ought to ask themselves. Let us suppose that with a Water-Supply lail on 100 acres of land would feed ten sheep more than it does under existing circumstances, what would be the result ? The annual value »f a sheep is supposed to be about 15s, so that four sheep would nearly pay for the water, and the owner of the land would have six sheep, or L 4 10s more than if there had been no water to pay for. We do not say that the l«nd would carry ten sheep more on account of the water; we only s«y that that is the question farmers ought to ask ihemselvea. For their guidance we shall quote a high authority on the subject. Mr Passmore is an engineer of reputs ; he owned a farm on the Ashburton Plains, and lived on it whim the County Council carried out its WaterSupply Scheme. Mr Passmore has since gone home to England, and reported to the Institute of Civil Engineers that the stock-carrying capacity of his own farm increased 33 per cent, on account of the water running through it 1 Now that is the testimony of a man who was capable by his training of forming a sound judgement on the subject ; he had sold bis farm and consequently could not have been puffing it up ; be bad no object evidently in view except to give scientific information to scientific men, and on these grounds there is no reason for doubting his assertion. Now what is the meaning of an increase of 83 per cent 7 It means this : If 100 acres of land could carry 200 sheep without water, the same ciuld carry 260 when supplied with water. If what Mr Passmore has said is true, the people of Waitohi could not invest in any speculation more profitable than water, and they ought to consider the question seriously before voting against it. As we have said, it is their own business altogether; we bsve no interest in the matter further than we think it our duty to tell them what we think of it, and give them any information which we possess bearing on the question. We have done so now, and we trust the decision they arrive at will be such as will be conducive to their own prosperity.