11725. Have you been called in to assist settlers in their task by showing them how to lay the water on to the land at Harvey?—Not officially. A settler might write to me and request assistance.

11726. By Mr. PAYNTER: Would you then go to his assistance?—Undoubtedly. We have been assisting the settlers who have written to us and asked for help. We watered in one case 70 acres, and in another case 14 acres. We have undertaken a good deal of grading from time to time at Harvey. We have devoted a considerably amount of time to Harvey, considerably more than to any other place. My assistant in his annual report to Mr. Connor said he considered that a man should be stationed there permanently to give advice.

11727. If a settler wrote direct to the department and not to you, to whom would the communication be sent?—It would be all the same, I would get it.

11728. If he wrote to the Drainage Department they would pass it on to the Agricultural Department?—Most probably.

11729. By the CHAIRMAN: Do you approve of the lay-out of the Harvey irrigation scheme?—That is a question of the expense. That would depend upon whether settlers can afford to pay a rate which must be struck to pay the interest and sinking fund.

11730. would you have advised settlers to go in for the open channel scheme?—If the land was graded I would.

11731. You recognise that the greater portion of the land being under trees would have been very difficult to grade?—Undoubtedly.

11732. It would be almost impossible to grade this portion already planted?—Undoubtedly.

11733. Do you consider that the Harvey scheme has been a success up to date?—No. The main reason is that the drainage is not sufficient. Another reason is that portions of the land planted to citrus are absolutely unsuitable for making orchards a payable proposition.

11734. Are there any difficulties in the scheme itself?—The problem is to apply water intelligently to ungraded orchards. I do not know that consideration was given to that. It was a very dangerous experiment unless the water could be applied by pipes in the orchard. I have some notes here to the following effect:—

In dealing with irrigation projects of any description two main features must be considered, viz., the engineering side of the question and the agricultural. The engineers deal with storage and conveyance of irrigation water. The irrigation agriculturalist must determine the benefits the soil may receive from the application of water. Experience has demonstrated in America that much more consideration has been given to the diversion and conveyance of water than its distribution and application to the soil.

Applying water to established citrus orchards without proper provision being made to carry off excess water from the soil.—The facts which emphasises the necessity of drainage in this settlement, even before the advent of irrigation, must have been known as a drainage board had been in existence for some time. The first question to be considered before any irrigation scheme was formulated would be the effectiveness of the main drainage system as it stood. Main drains to be effective must be such that the line of saturation may not be held too high in the soil: their depth to be such to allow a proper outfall for the underground drainage of individual orchards. To-day, in some cases, tile underdraining is being undertaken, but these drains are not deep or large enough. Dr. Harvey's property is an example.

Applying water to ungraded established citrus orchards at Harvey.—Our branch has undertaken the work of irrigating ungraded individual orchards after rigid investigation, but this is a very different matter of applying water to an established fruit settlement, which was initiated without any idea of the orchards being irrigated. I danger of applying water to ungraded land is universally acknowledged to be unsound unless water can be applied under pressure through pipes. In the case of the Harvey settlement, most of the orchards are planted with citrus trees, which are surface feeders. Under these conditions it is impossible to properly prepare many of these orchards to receive water without injury to the trees. The natural condition of the land is a few cases may be such that grading is unnecessary, but similar cases occur in all irrigation settlements. Another point which should be mentioned is that the labour involved in applying water to ungraded land is much greater than with land that has been properly prepared. Beyond my preliminary report in 1911, nearly eight years ago, I have not been asked to give any further information. At that time the land was held privately.

11735. Do you consider that the partial failure of Harvey is due to any fault in the system of irrigation itself? It seems to me that you consider firstly that in view of the defective drainage which was known to be a feature of the Harvey land, then in view of the fact that the orchards were upgraded and that water could not scientifically applied to upgraded land, and, lastly, in view of the fact that the scheme was an open channel and not a pipe scheme capable of conveying water satisfactorily to the land as it stood, the scheme itself was inherently destined to be a failure?—Are you speaking from the engineering side or the agricultural side?

11736. I am speaking from neither side, but from the point of view of the outsider?—It cannot possibly pay many orchardists under the present conditions.

11737. The lessees cannot under present conditions pay for the water and make a profit?—Not orchardists.

11738. By Mr. PAYNTER: Do you say the scheme of irrigation should not have been undertaken without drainage?—Not without further drainage. That is the key to the whole position.

11739. Not until the drainage was made perfect?—Exactly. The depth of the main drains must be regulated so as to allow the individual blocks to be efficiently tile-drained.

11740. By the CHAIRMAN: What do you think can be done to improve the position of affairs at Harvey?—That I consider should be determined by bringing together the best ability we have in the service.

11741. You are not prepared to express an individual opinion as to what might be done?—No. I