(3.) Included in the amount of £34,000 was an amount of £2,800 reserved by the joint arrangement of the parties to line certain channels shown on the plans. It was also agreed that wherever planted orchards were encountered, underground pipes were to be used to carry the water through them, and that the River Channel was to be piped right through.

Notes.—More might be written on this point, but we hold emphatically that this was the agreement as the Harvey people understood it and was the basis on which they accepted the liability.

In the design of the whole scheme several risks of considerable import seem to have been freely accepted. They were:—

(1.) It is considered fundamental that irrigation cannot be successful without free underground drainage.

(2.) It is considered difficult, and unduly expensive, to apply water by open channels to ungraded planted orchards.

(3.) The lay-out of the plantations had not been designed for irrigation. The blocks were ten chains square. In practice it is found unsound policy to contemplate carrying water by furrow irrigation more than five to seven chains, and for this reason blocks should be 15 x 16 ⅔ chains.

In accepting the agreement arrived at, the settlers appear to have preserved a shadow of doubt about the proposals, as they requested an interview with the Government to express their doubts. They allege that they were side-tracked for a year, when the interview was arranged, but it is quite a farce, as the Minister simply replied that he preferred acting on the advice of the engineers to accepting the views put forward by the settlers.

On the Government side, the scheme was designed to suit the district, and no doubt the risks were duly considered, but it is an extraordinary and regrettable fact that the Irrigation Expert was never consulted in any way as to the lay-out of the scheme.

The work was duly carried out under the direction of the Irrigation Commission, composed of Messrs, Trethowan, Oldham, Connor, and Moody. the settlers were represented by a local committee. As the work proceeded, difficulties arose, and the agreement with the settlers was varied considerably. The £2,800 reserved for lining the agreed channels was absorbed in the general expenditure. The agreement with respect to carrying the water through planted orchards was not observed. Pipes were not employed to convey the water along the River Channel.

In view of these irregularities, the Commission appears to have approached the settlers concerned individually, and obtained a number of indemnities from them releasing the Government from certain consequences of a failure to carry out the contract. This was done without the knowledge of the Harvey Committee, and the Harvey Committee refuses to recognise the proceedings. The area to be rated has also been in dispute, the Government claiming exemption under the Act for some 500 acres of unsold land to which no channels were provided. On this point it is quite clear that the original area, 3,310 acres, was exempted from the operation to the Act by the original contract. These differences of opinion have been responsible for very regrettable friction, which has not been lessened by the arbitrary attitude of members of the Irrigation Commission.

The costs of the work have not, in our opinion, been properly set forth and they possibly supply a reason for the Irrigation Commission's action. The total cost has been £47,193, from which, by agreement, £3,500 has been debited to a No. 2 scheme, which, owing to differences between the parties, has been abandoned. The net cost has been £43,693, of which £9,693 has been written off by the Government. But it must not be forgotten that the £2,800 reserved for cement lining the channels was appropriated by the Commission to other expenditure. Subsequently £250 of this sum was expended in lining channels, reducing this to £2,550. A further sum, estimated at £2,520, being the difference between the pipes otherwise agreed upon and the cost of the substituted work, has also been absorbed in the general expenditure. There is thus a difference in the estimate and the actual cost of £14,763, made up as follows:—

Actual cost of work .. .. £43,693

Estimate .. .. £34,000

Less allowances as £2,550 above £2,520

.. £5,070

.. ..£28,930

Difference .. .. £14,763

The scheme has now been in operation for three summers, and its effect is apparent. The unlined channels have not been an entire success. Where the ground is sound they are satisfactory, but in places the water undoubtedly escapes, and getting beyond control, causes considerable damage. On this point both sides claim a victory. The engineers hold that the channels have been relatively satisfactory. The Committee points to the exceptions. The Engineer in-Chief on his visit saw a little to complain of. Your Commissioners made a special visit for the purpose and saw seepage from a channel penetrating 6½ chains inland. There is no finality anywhere on this point up to the present.

There is no doubt that the settlers did not at the commencement of the scheme understand how to apply the water to the land and considerable trouble resulted, and there is perhaps no more regrettable feature of the Harvey question than the fact that no attempt was made to show the settlers how to use the water. The officers of the Irrigation Department were available but they were never detailed to attend to this very important matter.

After delivery from the channels, the position is almost wholly unsatisfactory. All control of the water, on some ground, is lost and it simply disappears, until intercepted by the hard clay substratum, which it follows to the lowest level and collects in depressions in quantities which even tile drainage cannot remove before the land becomes waterlogged. There are exceptions. Where the land is suitable, the irrigation has been quite successful. Hence there are some settlers who praise the scheme; others only see in its continuance their approaching ruin. The experience is diverse. There are few cases alike. We saw orchards detrimentally affected by the seepage, while others, not affected by the seepage at all were showing signs of "die-back" and were apparently planted on unsuitable land.