The Evening Star FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1928. THE ARROWTOWN TRENCH.

Evening Star, Issue 19793, 17 February 1928, Page 4

The Evening Star FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1928. THE ARROWTOWN TRENCH.

Ir is perhaps unnecessary to state that the Arrowtown “ race ” is the particular job mentioned in our yesterday’s article as a possible destination for some of the 1,000 unemployed to be found Government relief work in the Bouth Island. At all costs this must be prevented. The very people who moved in the matter of a Government irrigation scheme for this district have viewed with amazement and misgiving the methods employed to provide one. in the old mining days the usual course followed, where practicable, was to begin at the proposed intake and take the water along in the race as excavation proceeded. But in this case the work so far done amounts to an elongated gash on the hillside on the bank of the Arrow River opposite the old mining township. It follows a course designed to give the maximum of “irrigable” land commanded by the race, irrespective of the engineering difficulties presented by the very broken nature of the country. For example, one section of the race, contours at great length in horse-shoe fashion round awkward country when the obvious course from an engineering point of view was to make a short cut by means of a pipe line. The only explanation so far available for this extraordinary procedure was that the landowners concerned had “ signed up” for all the “irrigable” land, and that the detour, though expensive to construct and maintain, would justify itself by the additional revenue from the extra land brought in. And here it may be desirable to digress for a moment and investigate the principle of irrigation finance adopted by the Government. When a scheme is mooted the line of race, when decided on, is marked on a plan, and the owners of the land adjacent to and below the race are canvassed ns prospective customers for the water when it shall become available. The areas of “irrigable” land held respectively are set out on this plan. The owners take these figures on trust; and, it they have so urgent need of water ns to outweigh misgivings based on rumors percolating from outside fiom already irrigated districts, they sign up for so many acres. Observe that they do not sign up for a given quantity of water to be delivered so many times during the season. What they sign in reality is nn undertaking to pay water rates according to the irrigable area held, quite irrespective of whether that land ultimately receives an adequate supply of water, or even no water at nil. The inequity—one might almost say the immorality—of such a bargain is aggravated by the fact that the allowance arbitrarily prescribed by the Government is one head to every 150 acres, and that in practice the Government in no way holds itself in honor bound to supply even that altogether inadequate amount. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down on the matter, as many factors—such as depth and nature of top soil and subsoil, degree of slope, length of time the land has been brought under irrigation—enter into the determination of the economical quantity of water desirable for a given area; but widespread inquiries from irrigation settlers disclosed a universal conviction that, ior satisfactory returns from the land, the minimum supply should be two heads per 100 acres. It has also to be remembered that the definition of “irrigable ” ground is most elastic. Not all ground commanded by a race can be regarded as irrigable unless cost of distribution of the water over the land by the irrigator is to he no consideration whatever. Needless to say, it is a vital consideration. A large proportion of the “irrigable” land under the Arrowtown scheme would involve to each settler heavy cost per acre for distribution. The ideal conditions are gentle slopes from the race, the land presenting as near a plane surface as possible. Where, as in this case, the slopes are often irregular and the folds or undulations in the ground are pionounced, the cost of distribution rises so rapidly as to become prohibitive to the practical irrigator desirous of covering all his “irrigable” area. W 7 hat in effect would take place if an experienced irrigator were in charge would be that 'during the process of application of water he would be content to leave a number of large “ islands ” high and dry, rather than attempt the impossible, or the grossly uneconomic, alternative. There would thus be a considerable difference between his real and his nominal “irrigable” area; but it is the latter on which ho has signed up and would have to make water-rate payments. But in this matter—as on the other points mentioned, particularly the under-supply, or belated supply, or total non-supply of water—the settler has no recourse. There is no court of appeal from the departmental decision. In the design and construction of irrigation works tho Public Works Department has done some curious and costly things; in tho administration of completed schemes this same department has done, and persists in doing, some grossly unjust and oven inhuman things. There may possibly be two opinions as to the wdsdom of permitting the Public Works Department to retain the duty of constructing irrigation works until someone with real working knowledge and experience of this specialised branch of hydraulics is given charge and exercises it untrammelled. But there cannot possibly be two opinions as to the urgent necessity for the constructed works being handed over to some other body for administration almost the moment the water begins to flow in the races. The irrigation settlers are being bruised and battered too cruelly in the altogether one-sided contest with autocratic adamantine authority. When the Public W'orks Department finishes a new railway line it is handed over for working to the Railways Department, which thenceforth exercises solo control. It is the training and business of tho railway stall’ to operate railways. To operate irrigation systems should be the function of some body yet ‘to be—a body seized of the productive capacity of land and the limit to the loading it can endure in the way of taxation, especially water rates. This pivotal aspect is being totally ignored by tho Public Works officials in the irrigation areas. It is one main cause of “walking off.”

To revert to the Arrow-town “race.” The work accomplished is an isolated section of trench of some length. Political exigency overruled engineering protests over its inception; for this case was so glaring that anyone with any claims to engineering knowledge would

protest against having to ' father it. There were at the time many unemployed demanding work from' the Government—let them bo started on something immediately I About £90,000 was spent; then work was stopped. Not only has this money been clean thrown away, but positive harm has been done. The race has been cut along a steep sideling which denotes an old slip from the steep, frowning rocks higher up. The material in which excavation has been done is a micaceous, slaty schist. There could be no worse conditions for a race. A week ago there was a nice, steady rain in Otago, Arrowtown’s share being less than an inch, spread over several hours, so that the fall was the reverse of torrential. Yet the water coming dowm the hillside went under the race rather than into it, and undermined it in many places. The water came out below the spoil on the down-hill side of the race, and this spoil is now slipping and pulling at the race itself, the damage being all the greater because of the perversion of engineering practice followed here, by reason of which the excavated spoil becomes a destructive agent to the race instead of a support to it. Some local miners with long experience of race work who were employed on this job declare that this race will never carry water. Work ceased on the plea that the pipes to lead the water from the proposed intake on the Arrow River into the race were not available. May they never become available! Does the Government propose now to make them available and proceed with this scheme? The best thing—the only thing—to do is to abandon the ill-conceived project at once and write off the whole capital expenditure of £90,000. Speaking to a deputation at Wellington two days ago Mr Contes deprecated loose talk on the expenditure of public funds. His words in this connection were as follows ;

The Government is not “ chucking ” money about. Every penny piece is very carefully calculated before it is spent. It is your money we are responsible for, and, as trustee, I have always carefully investigated all the possibilities before coming to a conclusion, and the final conclusion has always been the ultimate costs to the people of New Zealand. It was disappointing to hear fairly prominent people talking about the Government as though they think wo are only here to chuck money about. Again I say we don’t throw money about. Our schemes are carefully planned and investigated, and we have engineers as capable as those in any other part of the world. I* lo talk I have referred to is loose talk ” and it is no credit to our citizens’to talk in that way. If they do so’it shows mighty little respect for those responsible for the expenditure of their money.

We invite Mr Coates to come to Central Otago, meet the settlers (without the intervention of departmental officers), and investigate this and other irrigation works. He will not hear loose talk. The penalised victims can talk pithily enough, as wo have recently found out for ourselves. It is one of their chief complaints that, when Ministers do visit their districts, the honorable gentlemen are so caiefully shepherded by their departmental officers that only the attractive “ shop windows” are seen and none of the muddle and squalor behind is permitted to be visible. And, as we propose to show later on in this series of articles, there has been a phenomenal amount of “window dressing” done in connection with irrigation in Central Otago.