7773. Would it be better to have a 4,000-yard dam 15 feet deep, or a 2,000-yard dam 12 feet deep, on the ordinary 1,000-acre holding? —the latter; but it would still be better if there were two dams of that capacity.

7773a. You mention that the goldfields people were paying as much as the agriculturist for their water? —I referred to the cost of the water to the State. Actually the goldfields people pay more than the agriculturist.

7774. Can you remember the figures which would justify that statement? —I cannot off hand, but they are all on record.

7775. It costs the Sate 7s. to convey water to Kalgoorlie, and the metropolitan population up there only pay 5s. for water, which costs the State 7s.? —I do not think that is quite correct. The Water Trust, that is the Chamber of Mines, guaranteed a given consumption. I am speaking of the time when I was Minister for Water Supply. They paid 5s. for all the water they took, but they guaranteed a certain consumption. The general public there, I think, speaking from memory pay 6s. 8d. Mr O'Brien has done a great deal in connection with the water scheme of recent years, but I consider Mr Trethowan to be the authority on the subject, as he has been intimately connected with it since it inception. That is to say the work was done during Mr Reynoldson's time, I think he is now farming at Wongan, but Mr Trethowan was associated with him, and could give you all the information you want better than anyone else.

7776. You say you too the water from the main at 2s. 6d. , but according to Mr Haywood, who furnished a typical case of the extension at North Baandee and Nungarin, the result of the operations left nothing at all for the water. Do you think it is a better proposition for the settlers to develop their own water supply independently of the scheme? —Undoubtedly, but at the same time they cannot become independent of the scheme now. but it would be a sound policy to have their own catchments in order to supply them with ample water, and they should also put their stables and homestead near their water. No doubt if they think it out, it would be better for them to conserve their water on their own holdings rather the couple themselves up with the goldfields scheme.

7777. By Mr CLARKSON: Would it be sound policy to provide the settlers with water with the idea of abandoning the extension at the end of the life of the extension? —I would not say that as time rolls on it will prove a great advantage to the agriculturalist, and not a burden. True they are paying a big rate, but it must be remembered that they cannot use all the water they are entitled to, and if they were sufficiently stocked up they certainly would not growl at the price of water. The position is actually that they are in the initial stages of development, and therefore cannot possible use the water, but it is at the present time that they are paying so much —at a time when perhaps they can least afford it, but you will not find a man whose property is well developed on the main who is growling. The reason is that he is doing all right. There are scores of farmers who are paying the rate, and who are developed to the extent that they can utilise the water.

7783. Even in the case of a man who is not growling, if he were provided with the water he requires by means of his own dam, would he not be in a better position, and would he not prefer that system to the cost of the present scheme? —I would not express a definite opinion. It might apply in some cases, but not in other. Then it must be remembered that there are many men whose holdings do not possess good catchments. Every holding is not provided with that advantage.

7779. Experienced men tell us that such occasions would be rare, but they might construct dams now without expert advice, and might possible put them in the wrong situation? —You see that everywhere, as you travel around.

7780. It struck us that if any such scheme as I have indicated was feasible it would be good for the State as well as for the individual and would limit the tax on the industry? —I would not like to express a definite opinion on that. I would like more information. I would point out, however, that there is another phase of the question, and that is that the 3 per cent. sinking fund will give out in eight years. Now, when you have got the cost wiped off it will be a different proposition to that is to-day. The sinking fund is two per cent. on, I think, two millions, that is, the original raising, not on the total scheme, which is three millions. When that is wiped out the whole situation could be reviewed. You will get rid of the £7,500 and get rid of the loan which carries the interest free of cost in, I think, eight years.

7781. By the CHAIRMAN: Yet you say you would be willing to pay a rate to have the water in any particular spot that you required it on your property? —That is so. But not now. Otherwise I would not have constricted my dam, but would have willingly paid £30 a year.

7782. By Mr PAYNTER: Would it not be wasteful to have the water also in additional to the £30 water—I might like it in another part of the farm. I might supplement it.

7783. By the CHAIRMAN: If you had 1,000 acres of sandplain tacked on to your farm would you be prepared to pay 4s. on that? —Well, not willingly.

7784. Do you think it is sound business to continue the full rate on second and third class land? —you have to continue that so that you do not penalise the State any more than you are doing. If you take it off the second and third class land you must put it all on the first class, and if you reduce the rate on the goldfields and will be robbing the State of revenue which you cannot afford to do; but, if anything, the goldfields people have the worst end of the stick.

7785. By Mr CLARKSON: the State paid last year over £50,000 deficit on the goldfields scheme? —Yes, that was the whole thing, and includes interest on the weir which the agricultural industry is not contributing to. The goldfields people are paying a portion of it. You are on dangerous ground if you attempt to relieve the agricultural industry at the expense of the general community. I have been reading the published evidence, but do not take a great deal of it seriously. As far as I am concerned I consider we want permanent requirements, not temporary expedients such as the transfer of burdens