WEDNESDAY, 16th JANUARY, 1918. (At Harvey.)

Present: J. O. Giles, Esq., Chairman. H. H. Paynter, Esq. F. E. Venn, Esq.

The Commission visited Harvey on this, the second, occasion, for the purpose of inspecting the irrigated orchards and the irrigation scheme generally. On the main road, in the channel which had been excavated by the roads board, the attention of the Commission was drawn to the fact that, caused by seepage alone, there was nine inches of running water. This was caused principally through the irrigation scheme. A visit paid to J. Hanley's place. This orchardist had already made a claim on the Government for damage done to 50 of his trees due to seepage from the channels. It is admitted that trouble was due to the fact that the land was not drained before the irrigation scheme was put in. This block, before the irrigation scheme was installed, was considered one of the best in the settlement. Mr. Hanley considered that for potato growing or dairying the scheme was very good. If a four-inch tile drain was put in all the trees would be saved and dairying and potato growing would be an assured success. The Commission next visited A. Upham's property. In this orchard the effect of the seepage from the channels was very apparent. The seepage was noticeable at least 6 1/2 chains from the channel. Mr. Upham stated that last year he could not get on to the land to plough it. He considered also that the seepage brought saline properties to the surface, which was likely to cause a great deal of damage. He further pointed out that the seepage encouraged the growth of weeds at the wrong time of the year, thus causing a considerable amount of trouble. A swamp of considerable size was shown to the Commission, containing 2½ feet of water, all caused by seepage from the irrigation channels. The non-irrigated portion of the orchards was distinctly the best part of it. This was on high land, with deep soil, and situated on the banks of the Uduc Brook. This brook has been wiped out of existence by the scheme.

 L. Prince's property was next visited This orchardist had 20 acres of citrus trees. He pointed out that seepage was coming into the tiled channels ten chains distant and brought the water up to the winter level. Mr. Prince had started irrigating two days before the arrival of the Commission, and the land in the vicinity of the channels was under water. The nature of the soil was such that in several places the channels had fallen in. It was ascertained that the Government undertook grading and drainage for orchardists, and the department was apparently doing whatever was possible to remedy existing defects.

The property of O. Rath was next visited. This settler irrigates the whole of his land, which is utilised principally for the cultivation of Lucerne and fodder grasses, on which he carries out mixed farming. Mr. Rath does a good deal of dairying, carries a number of sheep, and has 25 acres of orchard. Altogether his holding comprises 60 acres. On this small holding, by means of intense culture and his excellent couch grass paddocks, he is able to carry on an average 40 ewes all the year round. A silo has been erected for the conservation of ensilage. He did not consider that his orchard property, taking it all round, was a good proposition.

 On Isaac Lowe's property the Commission was shown channels which had been cemented. This had been carried out owing to the property being situated on the river bank, where, owing to the depth and nature of the soil, the channels would not hold the water without a cement lining. The material had been applied three-quarters of an inch in thickness. Mr. Lowe advised that by this means there was absolutely no seepage. On another portion of the estate tar lining had been resorted to. Apparently, however, this was unsuccessful, as the couch grass had broken though, and the tar lining had fallen down. It was considered to be cheaper than the cement, but not as effectual. A rough estimate obtained goes to show that the tar lining cost 33s. per chain in normal times, while the cement costs approximately £5 per chain.