7793. By Mr. CLARKSON: It does not count greatly till you get to the excess?—That is right and very few of them go to the excess. Another thing is there are many who could use the water but do not. Some of them grow nice patches of lucerne but some of them do not utilise the water they pay for. Others irrigate for vegetable growing. All of them could use the water and thereby reduce the cost of living and increase the egg production and improve and fatten pigs and keep their horses healthy. It is not a big capital expenditure to put on a few sprinklers.

7794. Many of them say they cannot use it profitably. They realise they have to pay the rate but cannot afford to pay it and do not want to be forced to use what cannot be used profitably?—That sort of argument does not appeal to me. At the time I said that they would agitate to get the mains down and soon afterwards would agitate to get the rate lessened, and after all that is but human nature. They would say they wanted it reduced to £15 instead of £30, and after that they would want it reduced again to £7 10s. That is agitation but it is not an argument that will appeal to Parliament. I am yearly advancing that it is not this matter that will relieve the agricultural industry, and a lot of those who have water connected wanted it for a domestic supply and not for the development of their property. At the time they did not care what it cost them.

7795. By the CHAIRMAN: Taking your argument and carrying it to a logical conclusion and recognising that men cannot pay the present charges for water on undeveloped holdings what do you suggest would put him on a sounder footing. At the present moment he is gasping for breath?—Assist him to develop so that he can utilise the water. If you relieve one man because he is not making a profit you would have to tax another man who is making a profit.

7796. By Mr. VENN: Would it pay to water sheep at 6s.?—No. But when you come on to the four-penny rate it would be a different thing altogether.

7797. By the CHAIRMAN: You said that many men had too much land cleared?—I was referring to the eastern wheat belt. There has been too much encouragement given to clear land and too little consideration directed to cultivation. You will see thousands of acres that have been cleared and have since reverted to nature again. Then, too, you will see men struggling to put in a large area of crop; instead of cropping say 300 acres well he will crop 700 acres badly. That is due to the fact that there has been too much clearing. The farmer has not put any of his own money in it. Many of them let contracts and never considered when their land was cleared whether they could farm it properly. When I was Minister I told them not to advance the full amount, as the tendency would be to clear too much. The expert officials should be the advisers of the farmer, and the farmer should be educated up to the point when, if he has 600 acres, he should have 300 in crop under the best method. Then again there are those who have cleared too little land and yet they keep on cropping that same small area.

7798. By Mr. CLARKSON: The bulk of them have areas that are too small?—In the eastern district there are a large percentage who have too much land cleared.

7799. The position should be easily controlled by the institution advancing the money?—That is so.

7800. By the CHAIRMAN: Do you think that agricultural settlement has gone too far out in any direction?—I long ago formed the opinion that Lake Brown was too far out for settlement, and as a matter of fact I brought a number of the settlers in, and put them on holdings nearer in to give them a fresh opportunity . (The witness retired.)

Messrs. CASTILLA AND NEUJHAR (recalled):

7801. By the CHAIRMAN: We have recalled you in reference to water supply generally. The State is subsidising many farmers, all of whom necessarily require water. Is it better policy to put down for them dams with two years' capacity, or is two years' capacity out as far as Merredin, say, more than is required; or would a good covered dam with one year's capacity answer the purpose?—(Mr. Neujhar) I think it would be dangerous to try and serve the whole of the settlers because I am sorry to say they are not fixtures. There is a percentage of really successful men who stay on but the value of the water supply would depend upon the use that is made of the land.

7802. What constitutes a sufficient quantity for a farm of 1,000 acres to tide over an average season, allowing for contingencies?—A farm for cropping I should say would require a 2,000 yard tank, but if there are sheep running its size would be according to the carrying capacity of the land, but that is rather a question for people who run stock to answer, such as Mr. Clarkson.

7803. Mr. CLARKSON: One requires three-quarters of a gallon for sheep for seven months in the year.

7804. Mr. PAYNTER: We have anything from one inch to two inches of a rainfall in summer. Last year our water carried us through until November, but I should only put it at four months in the year out my way.

7805. The CHAIRMAN: The question is, What sort of dam should the Agricultural Bank finance? Is it good to finance a 12ft. dam of 2,500 yards as being sufficient for 1,000 acres, or would it be necessary to make it 4,000 yards and 15ft. deep, and which is the State going to find practicable?

7806. Mr. CLARKSON: I do not agree with the way in which that question is put.

7807. The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Clarkson will put the question.

7808. By Mr. CLARKSON: Mr. W. D. Johnson told us that he only excavated down to 10 feet because it was risky to go deeper, and one cannot lay down dimensions because they necessarily vary according to environment. We are seeking to do away with extensions and to substitute the construction of dams. What should be the size of the dams on which to insure a two-years' supply?—(Mr. Castilla) 4,000 yards, 15 feet deep every time if you can get that depth. (Mr. Neujhar): Along the goldfields main they are entitled to 72,000 gallons for £21 13s. 4d., but they use less than half that quantity, the average being 33,000 a year. That indicates that a 2,000 yards tank 12ft. deep is a big supply on the