It may be argued that if the faulty orange groves are grubbed out and the land directed to other uses under irrigation, the position may yet be retrieved. Undoubtedly; but some of the affected settlers have spent all they had in the orangeries, others have borrowed heavily. The price of orange lately has been low. The Harvey yield per acre in any case is not inspiriting, and there has been no money in the business lately outside a few picked plantations. The question arises as to where the money is to be found to re-establish the owners in some fresh field of effort. Another difficulty also crops up. The scheme is designed for the irrigation primarily of a citrus area, for which, in the irrigation sense, relatively small quantities of water are required. If a proportion of the orange groves are grubbed out, and the land is devoted to dairying and summer forage crops, for which heavy waterings are required, the Engineer-in-Chief sees that there may be difficulty in providing sufficient water, and he rightly takes this opportunity of pointing out the danger ahead. This is a question, therefore, which should be settled. A plain statement should be made as to the area which may safely be laid down to irrigation on each block under the altered conditions. Until the settlers are re-assured upon this point, they could not map out any definite future.

The Harvey Committee now declines to form a Board to take over the Scheme on the ground that the costs have been excessive, the contract is not completed, the distributing channels are a failure, the rateable area in dispute, and that it will be impossible to collect rates till the Scheme is put into efficient working order. It is this involved position which is referred to your Commissioners for report, and we do not for a moment suppose that our recommendations will satisfy any of the parties. The Engineer-in-Chief, reasoning somewhat from the standpoint we adopt, recommended that a flat rate on a lower basis than 17s. 6d. per acre plus a charge for each watering, should be considered. We find—

(1.) That the No. 1 scheme at Harvey was an experimental attempt to assist the settlers. It had to accept certain risks not unusual in irrigation projects of the kind.

(2.) That the channels are only a partial success.

(3.) That the difficulties subsequently experienced in applying water to the broken and treacherous country encountered are not a charge against the scheme.

(4.) That even if the channels had been lined, the subsequent difficulties would probably have been the same.

(5.) That the River Channel should have been piped.

(6.) That apart from the apparent failure of the irrigation scheme up to the present the prime reason for the position is the general unsuitableness of a portion of the country for irrigation for citrus culture.

(7.) That the scheme for citrus culture can never be a success till the area is satisfactorily under-drained. We saw water lying stagnant in some of the drains in the low-lying spots in the middle of the summer, and alongside water-logged country surcharged with escaping water from the irrigation in process. Under such conditions orange trees could never make head-way.

WE RECOMMEND—

(1.) That the Harvey scheme should be considered for the future as a mixed dairying and citrus area.

(2.) That an appeal board should appointed by the Government to go into the merits of each particular case, and fix the rate to be paid in the future, and to adjust anomalies in regard to arrears.

(3.) That the quantity of water available per block for future use should be estimated and declared.

(4.) That the thorough and efficient drainage of the area which is the first step at Harvey, should be put in hand by the Drainage Board.

(5.) That the recommendation of the Engineer-in-Chief be adopted, by which, by an agreement of the representatives of the settlers and the Engineer for Agricultural Areas, certain channels, to be mutually agreed upon, shall be cemented, in order to determine whether this will improve the situation.

(6.) That the channels along what is known as the River Channel shall be put in good and efficient order sufficiently to prevent their breaking away in future and carrying the soil into the river.

(7.) That the affairs of the Harvey No. 1 scheme as recommended by the Engineer-in-Chief shall be vested in a local board of management, with which shall be merged the management of the Harvey Drainage Board.

(8.) That the rateable area shall be 3,310 acres. In closing, we would add that the difficulties encountered by the scheme are common to general irrigation experience. The other Australian States have found optimistic excursions into the realm of irrigation a very costly pastime, and have written off millions of money on their long list of expensive experiments. The huge Burrenjuck undertaking in New South Wales, where the cementing properties in the soils irrigated have defied all calculation, is just now a very significant and pertinent reminder. It is probably just as well that the question and all its difficulties have been sufficiently ventilated by the local experience.

Repatriation.—Seeing that the State has so little land to sell in the South-West, and that much of the land is remote from railways, repatriation schemes should contemplate the close settlement of land along the existing railways. We make the statement that a large number of the land holders in the South-West have more land than they can profitably utilise in the day of this generation. It would be sound policy to re-purchase improved land, or land now used for grazing, but fit for intense culture, for sale to returned soldiers and immigrants, who could safely