7711. By the CHAIRMAN: At what rate is water charged under the guarantee systems?—It varies from 6s. to 8s. I cannot give you a specific instance of either amount being paid under the guarantee system. They do not come under my notice. I cannot say what led the Government to give up the guarantee systems, but I understand they were not uniform and that it was deemed desirable to bring in a rating system, and consequently the Act was passed. The principal provisions of the Act are that no extension can be put in until a majority petition in its favour is received; the land served is rateable from within 10 chains of the main to a distance within a mile and a half away; the first half-year's rates are capitalised, the object being to relieve the settler of the payment of those rates.

7712. At Doodlakine and at Burracoppin settlers told us that the water had been laid on without their being consulted?—I have looked up that matter. The evidence on the files indicates that the settlers were consulted and that, through their association, they made a request for the supply.

7713. Is the department in a position to deny the statements made at Burracoppin and Doodlakine?—Yes, with the reservation that there may be matters which do not appear, and which would put a different aspect on the question. As I find the documentary evidence, there is no justification for the statements made.

7714. What is the rate charged for water on the extensions?—They vary in various districts from 6s. to 8s. At North Baandee 8s. is paid. They pay a £5 holding fee and the water rate varies from 2d. to 4d. per acre. The districts charged 2d. being those from Baker's Hill to Northam, while east of Northam the rate is 4d. Those are the total statutory charges. The department's total charges for water on a 1,000-acre farm consists of holding fee £5, actual rate £16 13s. 4d., and meter rent £1.

7715. Do you find the settlers pay the rate willingly?—No.

7716. Why is that?—Principally on account of bad seasons.

7717. Have any representations been made to the department for reductions in rates?—Now and again we receive letters and there is an occasional deputation. By way of reply we simply state that the charges have to be met.

7718. On the actual cost per annum, I think you are earning 11 per cent. on the extensions?—That is what we propose to collect when we put an extension. The extensions pay 4 per cent. interest, 2 per cent. sinking fund, 3 per cent. additional depreciation and 2 per cent. operating expenses. On the supplying of water to settlers there was a deficit of £409 for the last financial year. Our total annual income is £11,124 and our expenditure £11,533. The ratepayers are entitled to 30,147,000 gallons and the quantity of water actually used last year was 12,926,000 gallons, the rates due for the same period being £9,048. The rates for the same period now in arrears amount to £7,571. The consumption refers to the 12 months ended 30th June, 1916, the rates covering the period to the 31st December, 1916.

7719. Apparently your experience is very unsatisfactory?—Yes. We are relying on the Industries Assistance Board to collect the outstanding payments, at least to the amount of some £4,000.

7720. By Mr. PAYNTER: Are these arrears less what you have received from the I.A.B. to date?—The rates for the same period now in arrears will be the amount we are looking to the I.A.B. to pay.

7721. Over a series of years?—Yes.

7722. By the CHAIRMAN: What is the life of the extensions you have laid down?—I should say about 15 years. I cannot say whether the pipes are likely to last as long as anticipated. We are quite able to supply the settlers with the water we have contracted for.

7723. What was the cost of the extension south of Meckering?—£2,161. Its length is six miles 12 chains. It is a guaranteed extension and so we have no data in respect of the rateable area. The revenue from landholders is £199 8s. 11d., and there is from the Lands Department a subsidy of £20 15s. 1d., or a total of £220 4s. The operating expenses represent £259 6s. 4d. and the deficit is £39 2s. 4d. The extension to North Baandee has a length of 122 miles 20 chains. Its capital cost was £33,333. Its rateable acreage is 137,522 acres, the number of holdings 124; annual expenses £3,666; revenue from rates £2,455; holding fees £631; excess water £43; total £3,129; deficit £537. These figures are up to the 30th June last. In both cases the figures account for only the actual expenses incidental to the reticulation.

7724. So this system shows a loss of £537 per annum already?—Yes, including the 11 per cent. The items of the annual expenses are as follows:—Interest 4 per cent., £1,333; sinking fund 2 per cent., £667; additional depreciation 3 per cent., £999; operating expenses 2 per cent., £667; total £3,666.

7725. It has been asserted that the department protested in vain to the settlers and to the Government also that the water would be too costly for agricultural purposes. Have you looked up evidence on that point?—I can find very little having a bearing on the matter. In replying to the Tammin conference in 1912 the then Minister, Mr. Johnson, stated that so far as Mundaring water was concerned, they had recognised that to pump water for agricultural supplies was not a payable proposition, and that what he proposed to do was to go ahead with the boring operations.

7726. The statement was that in face of the protests of the department, both the Government and the settlers insisted upon having the water. It is a serious thing to say and I would like to have it supported by the files?—Mr. Reynoldson, who was the engineer, said he considered a piped supply would be altogether too costly for irrigation, even for garden purposes, and that to make such provision would, in his opinion, only tend to cripple any system of reticulation to farming districts. Mr. Bath, the then Minister for Lands, said he had never disguised the fact that he considered the scheme as an expensive one, and his preference had always been towards securing the most available information and to undertake local supplies. He said that, on the other hand, the Ministry had found, during the time they had been in office, that the farmers' preference had been for the scheme, and undoubtedly in the emergency it was the only concern at their command. The Minister went on to say "The comprehensive scheme was approved after favourable report by a committee comprising the secretary for the Goldfields Water Supply, the Under Secretary for Agriculture, the Chief Engineer for