from residents of East London, for legislation prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor to natives.

from the W.C.T.U. and residents of East London, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto.

from the Town Council of Pert Elizabeth, for amendment of the General Dealers and other Licences Amendment Act, 1906 (Cape).

Proclamation 168 of 1911, dated 26th June, 1911, proclaiming the operation of Act No. 22 of 1911, within the Cape Division; Government Notice 1049, dated 27th June, 1911, covering Regulations framed under the said Act; Government Notice 1072, dated 29th June, 1911, on the Establishment of a School of Anatomy at the South African College, Cape Town.

Government Notice 710 of 1911, regarding Miners’ Training School, Transvaal ; Summary Statement and Detailed Schedule showing measures taken for the prevention of dust in Witwatersrand mines.

as chairman, brought up the First Report of the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, appointed by order of the House of Assembly, dated the 29th and 30th January, 1912, and consisting of Mr. Speaker, Mr. Merriman, the Minister of Railways and Harbours, Sir Henry Juta, Sir Thomas Watt, General Beyers, the Minister of the Interior, Sir Bisset Berry and Sir Thomas Smartt, as follows :

Your committee, having considered the draft Standing Orders relating to public business, prepared by the Clerk of the House, and referred to them on the 29th January, have agreed to the same with certain amendments, and beg to recommend that the Standing Orders so amended and submitted herewith be adopted as the Standing Orders of this House relating to public business.

Chairman.

Committee Rooms, House of Assembly, 4th March, 1912.

The Standing Orders were ordered to be printed.

stated that unless notice of objection to the proposed Standing Orders was given on or before the 29th instant, the Standing Orders would be considered as adopted. They would not come into force this session.

asked how hon. members could take exception to the rules?

said that if an hon. member notified before March 29 his desire to discuss the rules, he could adopt the ordinary procedure.

moved that the following papers be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts for consideration, viz.: (1) First Report of the Public Debt Commissioners appointed under the Public Debt Commissioners Act, 1911 (U.G. 15—’12) presented to the House on the 14th February ; (2) the Annual Accounts, 1910-’11, of the Province of the Cape of Good Hope with report of the Provincial Auditor (C.P. 1—’12), presented to the House on the 21st February ; (3) the Finance Accounts and Appropriation Accounts for the period 31st May, 1910, to 31st March, 1911, of the Province of Natal, with the Provincial Auditor’s Report (N.P. 1—’12), presented to the House on the 21st February ; (4) Return prepared in terms of section twenty-six of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1911, showing particulars of Special Warrants issued by His Excellency the Governor-General during the period from the 26th February, 1912, presented to the House on the 1st instant.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved that the Bill be now read a second time. He said he would not attempt in a country like theirs, to prove the necessity for having the best legislation they could on the subject of water; and he would not insult the commonsense of the House by showing that this question was of supreme interest to the country. He would merely say that they should aim at keeping what was good, removing what was bad, and make provision for things that had been unforeseen in the past. The object of the Bill before the House was to consolidate the laws that existed at present in two of the Provinces regarding irrigation, and create an irrigation law applicable to those Provinces where there was no such law. In consolidating the law the House may take cognisance of those points which had proved inadequate in the past, and to deal with the practical experience of the men who had practical knowledge, and to utilise that knowledge in consolidating the laws which they had. In so consolidating and amending the law, they must pay particular attention to the fact that in laws of the past, meeting to a great extent the wants of the past, sufficient provision had not been made to conserve the water that often ran to waste.

These were the two great points with which they had to deal in the Bill—the consolidation and the extension of the usefulness of the law where it had not been formerly sufficient to meet our needs. This was at all times a difficult subject. With cur extended needs alterations had become necessary, and the broad principles originally Laid down in the law had to be modified as water became scarcer and the population grew. One difficulty that faced them was—if he might put it plainly—the ignorance as to what really is the law in regard to this question of water. The Bill dealt primarily with the use of public streams ; but, incidentally and necessarily, it also laid down certain principles in regard to the use of private water, as modifying the use of water in general. In regard to the Common Law as well as the Statute Law, there seemed to be a great deal of misapprehension and ignorance. There was the difficulty that to a great extent people spoke of water in a public stream as if they could get the absolute use and absolute ownership of that water, and from that arose much misapprehension as to the rights that existed in water. If it could once become plain as regards public streams—it had all along been laid down clearly in our Common Law and taken up again in OUT Statute Law—that the right is only that of use, qualified again by reasonable use, it would help considerably towards getting a satisfactory law. There were some people who took up a dog-in-the-manger policy, and liked to keep the water because they had that right. In a country like ours the climatic, hydro-graphic, and agricultural conditions were of the most diverse character, and had to be covered by such a law as this. We were not, as had been stated, faced by new difficulties in this respect as the result of Union. We were really in a better position under Union. The diversity he had touched upon was not a diversity in the four Provinces. The diversities existed in different parts of the same Province. But it was unfortunate that they could not start with a clean sheet. They had to take account of things as they found them, with rights as they had been created, and, trying to recognise those, see what they could do with the balance of common right, or with that balance of what was not used under existing rights, for the greatest good of the greatest number. The Cape and Transvaal Acts in principle were to a great extent the same. When practically tested they were found not to supply all the wants created by the extended use or water. The past history of legislation might be summed up in this: that there was a common law applying certain of the larger principles to the question as a whole, but that common law did not in itself, in laying down the principles, go into the details that would meet all the cases as they turned up. One had only got to remember this fact, that our Common Law came from countries which, unlike South Africa, did not as a rule suffer from the scarcity of water, but were really water-logged, and although they had to some extent laid down how riparian owners should divide water, they did not go fully enough into the principle. In this connection they owed a debt of gratitude to the courts who, taking the principles involved in our law—the right of reasonable use—had so broadly and beneficially explained and widened out the meaning of the law as to meet as far as possible the cases they had to deal with. But that had also created this difficulty. There had not been the consideration which the Legislature would have given the case in laying down broad principles and fitting them to meet all emergencies. It had created, satisfactorily yet unsatisfactorily, the case law. Our law, as it now stood, both the adaptation of the common law and the law in the statutes, had arisen out of small cases—little points that had been settled as far as possible according to principle, more often according to the equities of the individual case; but they had hampered the laying down of an ideal law. One of the main difficulties was that in dealing with the law in the special cases as they arose, in the application of our Statute Law or Common Law, there was no opportunity for dealing with the great thing the whole country now cried out for, the prevention of waste, the conservation of water. Provision for that could not have been made under case law. In, the Cape Irrigation Acts, which really contained very little fundamental law, there was perhaps some modification of the principles. With the exception of Oudtshoorn, there were very few districts where, until a few years ago, irrigation was practised on any considerable scale. When once it started, it seemed to catch on, and he was glad to say that irrigation had now reached a stage that (had left the law behind. And though the law was at that time undoubtedly good, it would not suit present requirements. Oudtshoorn, Worcester and Stellenbosch led the way, but he believed that in the very near future these districts would only form a comparatively small proportion of irrigated South Africa. Great areas still required to be dealt with. The large tracts of Karoo in the Cape Province and southern part of the Free State, as well as Bechuanaland and other regions, would be able to accomplish much with irrigation schemes. South Africa was really on the threshold of development in this connection. Unless the old laws were considerably amended and supplemented, we would be, as it were, before a wall over which we could not get in the matter of further irrigation. In regard to the Transvaal, it seemed almost a pity that having a clear field before them they should have so, he would not say slavishly, but so filially copied the Cape laws to a large extent, and in that way precluded South Africa from seeing a wider application of the old principles and new principles applied in addition However, there also we had the fact that their law was drafted on the old principles, and had been made as near as possible in most respects to the Cape law. The Transvaal law went wrong in trying to simplify the Cape law. The River Boards jumbled up the executive administration of the law with the judicial functions of the Courts to such an extent that the state of these Boards had become chaotic. In this connection they had to go back to the old Cape law and keep separate the functions of those who had to administer the law and those who had to declare the rights. In the Orange Free State there were portions where irrigation could be used to immense advantage for the country, but the absence of an irrigation law had completely hampered any attempt to make use of the water, which accordingly ran to waste. As regards Natal, the conditions were such that irrigation would not be applied in the same way as in the other Provinces, but at the same time it was necessary to have a law there to deal with the use of water in connection with such matters as domestic supply and power schemes, and such provision was made in the draft Bill.

Now from what he had said, it would be clear that it was no longer possible to start quite afresh. That was no longer possible ; and they must accept the fact that in dealing with that law they were not going to deal with every vested interest and right.

In saying that, he wanted, first of all, to remove some misapprehension, which he had heard from certain quarters, that vested interests were going to be unduly interfered with. He thought those who had carefully studied that law would see that the only way in which vested interests could be affected was on this point: where the vested interest was a purely technical one—a right which rested on some definition or theory, but which could not be exercised practically—there the Legislature should step in and stop such a dog-in-the-manger attitude being persisted in. But where an owner or a man occupied land, and his rights were fairly exercised, the law must not interfere with him. (Hear, hear.) He had seen those who fancied that they were intending to interfere with existing rights of municipalities, but a careful study of the Bill as a whole, and not of a few disjointed sentences—they would see, when they kept that in mind, that the municipalities were in no way affected, unless they were considered as owners of property along some public stream, when they could not expect that they would have more rights than other owners had, except that it would always be open to them of course to come to the Legislature for larger rights. We were fortunate in one respect ; that we had, at all events, of all the other troubles which might arise about water, this thing was common in South Africa—we had one common law end therefore the principles were the same, and there was no diversity of principle. Another thing that they should have to remember was that they would never have a water law which would be so mechanically and mathematically accurate that it would meet every case which would arise ; and they would not attempt to legislate for such a thing—all they could do was to lay down certain principles, and lay down as clearly as possible how these were to be applied in practice, and have some machinery for applying these principles ; and that there would be an opportunity for adapting the machinery and enlarging the scope of the authority of the people who had to work the machinery, as circumstances arose. That was all for the future, and he did not think that the law before them would be the last word on irrigation ; but if every new proposition put before the Legislature could be a step in advance, they would have done their duty to the country, although they would not be able to deal mathematically accurately with the problem. The object was to go a step forward, and not to aim at perfection at once.

The whole Bill mainly turned on Chapter II., and the provisions contained in it. The rest of the Bill merely dealt with details, either of the administrative machinery or facilitating the use of water for all the different purposes which were required under the Bill. In that they had had to study mainly the conditions of the Cape, because both the experience and requirements of the Cape had been beyond those of the other Provinces; and if for no other reason than that, they would refer in that law to the legislation and the experience of the Cape. They would also take advantage of experiences elsewhere, but the Cape law would be the firm basis of that Bill. The existing Cape law differentiated between two classes of streams—the perennial and the intermittent. The definition of these words in the Cape law would appeal as much to them for ingenuity as the good intent for which they were made to work than anything else, but if they came to look practically at the matter, they did not apply with the same force as they did when needs were smaller. When they came to the technical application of the definitions, they would find that they were absurd and irrational. He did not say that to the detriment of those who had argued in favour of these definitions, because they had the best of intentions. A perennial stream was defined as: “A natural stream, which in ordinary seasons flows through the greater part of the year through defined channels, and the water of which is capable of being applied to the common use of the riparian proprietors.” One would at once see that if they took that too strictly—and he was glad to say that it had not been taken too strictly—a comparatively small stream, that ran for six months and a few days over, and was just large enough to be able to be used by a few people, so that no one would be able to derive any great benefit from it, would be “a perennial stream,” notwithstanding the fact that the ordinary meaning of the word “perennial” must be lost sight of, and that for a great part of the year they did not see any stream ; whereas a stream which ran for anything less than six months in the year, and during that period was a very strong stream, would be held to be “an intermittent stream.” They would see that they could not rush into mathematical definitions, and if they did, they ran beyond the bounds of common-sense; and they must, in that respect, try to get a law which would more explain than define, which might not perhaps suit his colleagues of the law, but which would suit the men on the land who wanted water. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, in dealing with that law, he hoped that the House would bear in mind that they were not trying to pass examinations in mathematical definitions, but trying to deal with matters which were calling out for practical assistance in the country. (Hear, hear.) They did not want a definition while the water was running to waste, but wanted to use the water to the best advantage of the country, even if the definition was not mathematically, accurate.

The right hon. gentleman went on to quote from the annual report of the Director of Irrigation for 1907, and remarked that the Director prophesied that future generations would be required to be attended to, but in the last few years the flood irrigation that had taken place had developed so enormously that the old anomalies of the law had become more and more apparent, and it was absolutely necessary, if we were to advance at all in the direction of using flood water, that we should make some satisfactory provision in that regard. The only system whereby the greater part of the undeveloped part of South Africa could be irrigated with benefit in the future would be a system of dealing with flood water and fairly and squarely to call it flood water. To see how much of it could be used for direct irrigation, and after satisfying the rights of the riparian proprietors, to find out what surplus they could not fairly use, and then to conserve that surplus. They had seen a tendency to call streams that were for the greater part dry, “perennial.’ They must mend that by common-sense and call it what it really was, and deal with it under the special circumstances required by the case. The tendency of the Courts, about which he made no complaint, in the past to help people by a more land more extended application of this name of “perennial” had led in one direction to a great deal of trouble in the future. They had come to that pass that part of a stream was called perennial which was clearly intermittent. This tendency of calling a thing by a wrong name led, he believed he was right in saying, to an amendment of the Cape law. The 1906 law, When applied in practice to a stream like the Little Brak River, was seen to go outside the bounds of what common-sense would allow. Parliament appointed a Select Committee, and the 1909 law was introduced, where for the first time they came face to face with the common-sense wants of the people. Although the law did not go very fully into the subject, at all events it paved the way, bridged over the difficulties as far as possible at that time, and gave them the opportunity of getting where they were to-day. It recognised the existence of what was called the “normal flow” and “surplus flow.” In the Transvaal the year before the same idea had been introduced. In the Transvaal, on the whole, the diversity was not so great as to climate and conditions generally affecting water as they found in the Cape Colony. Now, the only practical solution, he thought, was to consider the public stream as the fundamental unit to deal with, and to differentiate in such public stream between normal flow and surplus flow. The whole of the riparian owners will be allowed to use as much of the normal flow of streams—

What is the normal flow of the streams?

I shall give a full extended definition. Continuing, he said that by ascertaining, by the help of the Water Courts, what constitutes the normal flow, what was in excess of what was laid down as the normal flow, would be available for storage in reservoirs, or other irrigation, or for diversion into areas other than those having the first call upon the water.

Now in doing this there was no doubt that they would be met with the statement that some theoretical rights were being subverted. He was willing to acknowledge that, but they were only theoretical rights that people wanted after a “dog-in-the-manger fashion.” The Transvaal Act of 1898 provided for the storage of water, but this provision would not go so far as the Transvaal law, although it would provide legal machinery for granting protection to riparian owners. Referring to the central control of water, the Minister of Lands said that this was modelled upon the Transvaal law, there was no chapter in the Cape law similar to this, but the provisions were scattered all over the Act. The provisions dealing with the control of the development of water powers aimed at the prevention of dissipation of large (water powers and the development of small fractions thereof. Now with regard to Water Courts, he thought there could not be any reasonable doubt that the proper way to settle any water dispute was to settle it as quickly and as cheaply as possible. Therefore Water Courts were not a luxury but a necessity. Probably the suspicions of partiality that had arisen with regard to these Water Courts were unjust. The present Bill would provide that the chairman would be either a Magistrate, a Judge of the Supreme Court, or a senior barrister, but in each case a man who had some special knowledge of the law concerning water. Then as a second member they would have an engineer of repute, who would be able to give technical assistance ; and, thirdly, they would have a local man, not necessarily belonging to the immediate locality, and not having personal interests in the case, but one who was acquainted with its needs. The original idea of the Water Courts came from Spain, but the Water Courts in Spain were really only a kind of superior police, who saw to the divisional distribution of the water and did not in any way apply to vested owners’ rights. The Water Courts in the Union would require more training than those in Spain, or the Water Courts they had previously had. They must not only have honest men and able men, but, as far as possible, trained men, who could look on difficulties and decide upon them as they arose.

Cape legislation had been followed with regard to River Boards. Chapter VI.—Irrigation Districts and Boards—had been taken over almost entirely from the Cape Act, the only difference made being in regard to differential rating. This would allow a man who had poor soil to come in at the lower rate. The provisions with regard to the expropriation of land were practically the same as in the Cape Act. An attempt had been made to ensure that those who had the right to the use of water of a public stream need not exercise that right on their own property, but at another point along the stream. Chapter VIII.—Irrigation Loans—followed the Cape Act, but he trusted that better provision had been made in regard to small loans, for it had been found that the costs had been excessive. Continuing, the Minister said that the Irrigation Bill he introduced last year had been referred to a Select Committee of 17 members—practically a small Parliament of itself. The committee framed two reports, and the majority report was embodied in the measure now before the House. The Bill had also had to undergo a pretty severe criticism. It was referred to the Irrigation Congress, which met at Bloemfontein. With very few exceptions, all the men who had practical irrigation experience were at that Congress, where the measure underwent very close scrutiny. Certain amendments were made, and those amendments he would move as amendments to the Bill at the proper time. One thing must be encouraging to the Select Committee which sat on the Bill, and that was that a congress of men who would have to suffer from or benefit from the Bill had unanimously approved of it subject to certain alterations. (Hear, hear.) Their friends at Oudtshoorn —keen men, as they always were, in their own interests—were not quite satisfied with all that was done at Bloemfontein, and they got hold of the Director of Irrigation and went over the Bill again to make quite sure that vested interests would be respected. The result of their deliberations would be brought before the House as amendments, which did not affect principles, but would more satisfactorily ensure the working of the measure in the interests of those pioneers of irrigation. The main provisions of the Bill hinged upon the practical meaning that was to be given to the term “normal flow,” and in regard to this point ample notice would be given of an amendment extending the definition. He would not ask the House to see if it could find fault with it as a mathematical proposition, but as a practical common-sense thing which could be dealt with by practical men on the land in order to get the water divided fairly and squarely. Only a portion of the Bill would affect the Native Territories, and for the rest, special provision would have to be made for those territories.

In conclusion, Mr. Fischer acknowledged the debt that was owed to all those who had framed previous legislation on this subject and to the Courts which had given interpretations of the law on the matter. He thought we had come to a period when we should not rest satisfied with seeing in a country where every drop of water was as valuable as gold, millions of tons of water running to waste, but take precautions to store it. (Hear, hear.) Some of our most productive soil was on what was called the desert Karoo, and where the cry was “give us water.” We had that water, but it came in flood force, like a devouring wild beast. We ought to tame that wild beast. The Bill was a step in the direction of providing that the water that went to waste should be impounded and that the wild beast should be tamed to work for man. In that spirit he asked the House to adopt the second reading of the Bill, not that it was to be the be-all and the end-all of irrigation laws and to provide for every emergency. They would try to reduce the number of exceptions and make the Bill apply to cases where no law applied before ; they would try to find something sufficiently practical to allow something to be done. (Hear, hear.)

then repeated a portion of his speech in Dutch.

said that the question of irrigation always attracted a very large number in this country, and one had only to talk of “besproeiings werk” to rouse the attention of every man in the land. They had a tremendous interest in the development of the country, and they had also a very great interest that their rights were not infringed. Talk of “besproeiings werken,” and they pricked up their ears! There was a twofold motive for that. The one was their interest in irrigation, the other and more important was a fear that their rights would be in some way interfered with. The Minister must be now have realised that the Bill was not one for which one would make a dash. He appreciated the difficulties of the right hon. gentleman in laying the Bill before the House. One could see that he had numerous difficulties to deal with, and that they harassed and hampered him a great deal. He must have learned, since he spoke last year that he was going to make a dash for this Bill, that he could not deal with irrigation by a dash. There were matters far too complicated. And while on the one hand anxious to make use of all the water they possibly could they must take care, on the other hand, that they did not do more harm than good. The right hon. gentleman had talked a great deal about the practical man. He (the speaker) was not approaching the Bill from the point of view of being himself a practical man. He had had, however, a great deal of other people’s experience in regard to practical farming and perhaps it was not an unmitigated evil that he was not a practical farmer, because that meant that he could approach the Bill from the point of view of neither the upper proprietor nor of the lower proprietor. The great difficulty experienced in the past had been this. How must one look at this measure, from the point of view of the upper proprietor or from the point of view of the lower proprietor? These were very different points of view. He had always been a champion for the rights of the lower proprietor. He noticed his hon. friend the member for Oudtshoorn smiling ; he was rather in the position of the upper proprietor. (Laughter.) He (the speaker) had been, as far as he could, a champion of the lower proprietor, for this reason: Nature had done a great deal for the upper proprietor; he had the first taking of the water and the man below him, if he wanted to complain, had to go to the expense of a lawsuit. The unfortunate lower proprietor had to receive very often merely what the upper proprietor was good enough to send down to him. One of the greatest benefits they derived from the Cape Act of 1906 was the right it gave the lower proprietor to take out water on the land of an upper proprietor. In his experience that had done very much in regard to irrigaation, at any rate in the Cape Province—to which he specially directed his remarks —but that was by way of the view of the lower proprietor! Whenever they dealt with irrigation they were bound to find men who looked at it from different points of view, and it was on that account that the machinery—and he would first deal with the machinery, because that might be improved, without touching on the other points in the Bill—had never worked properly. There was no denying it. There was general discontent and general dissatisfaction throughout the Cape Province in regard to the Water Courts. (Ministerial cheers.) People did not like them, and people were withholding their cases. The reason was not merely having men to decide the case who, with the best intentions, were not trained to weigh evidence and had often to sit and hear evidence of witnesses taken for eight or nine days. A gentleman from his farm who had never done anything but farming was expected to weigh the evidence of numbers of witnesses. That was difficult enough. But the main cause of complaint was this, if the plaintiff was an upper proprietor and a lower proprietor was sitting, he might as well go home, and the converse also held. That was human nature, and was a matter that required remedy. He did not think that the right hon. gentleman need have gone to Spain for the prototype of our Water Court, for if he had recalled history he would have remembered the court of the landdrost and heemraad. The decisions of the landdrosts and heemraden were very good, but then there was very little cultivation, and the river was divided amongst four or five people, and it was a very simple matter. It was a very different thing now, and he was not so sure that under present circumstances the landdrosts and heemraden would give better decisions than the Water Courts did now. The old idea was, trust your local man and he will pull you through. There was no trust any more in the local man. (Laughter.) Many of them thought there never would be from the beginning, and it was curious that they were going back now to the first suggestion, to have a judge. The majority of those interested preferred a judge, and they wished him to go round: from place to place. Of course they wanted him as cheaply as possible. In the Bill that was provided for. They were to have an itinerant Water Court Judge. He did not know where they would get him from. Some people seemed to think they had too many judges. (An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.) In the Supreme Court, which was close to their doors, they had about 45 suits at the end of the term that had not been heard. They certainly could not get a Judge from the Cape Courts. The idea might be to put a Magistrate on, or to get a barrister with experience in water matters. His next point was in regard to the hydraulic engineer. One would like that he should not be an engineer stationed in the district, because, after all, being human, he also must make his friends. He thought that the hydraulic engineer should be called in only as a witness. He was not really the sort of person required to sit in Court. The person wanted for the Court was someone who could weigh evidence and come to conclusions on facts. Any Judge of experience would tell them that his difficulties were not connected so much with the law as in deciding on the facts. Thirdly, the Court was to consist of one local proprietor. He must be either an upper or lower proprietor, and they would have the same difficulty as they had in the Courts now. Take the case of an upper proprietor! He was bound to look at the case from his own point of view and not from the point of view of the lower proprietor. So there was room for improvement, and it was a question whether the Court as now proposed to be constituted in the Bill was really the best that could be established.

If the task of the Water Court had been difficult up to the present, and it must be remembered that they had had experience of laying down principles for over a hundred years—upon well-established principles—what were going to be the difficulties of a Water Court now, when the right hon. gentleman proposed to sweep away the whole of the common law, all the law upon which the judgments, servitudes, agreements, and awards had been based for the last 100 years and to do away with private rights in water and to make them public? He (the Minister) did not seem to know what he was doing in that Bill. With all these changes, he asked what were going to be the difficulties of the Water Courts in the future? Now, the first thing he would like to point out was that in considering the changes in Part II.—the main points as stated by the right hon. gentleman—the main portion of that huge Bill lay in Part II.—the rest of it were the details which the committee had threshed out. The main point of this Irrigation Bill and scheme by which the right hon. gentleman was going to catch “a wild beast” was Part II. He would call it a beneficent servant. However, the whole point was how to deal with these waters. Before dealing with the differences he wanted to draw attention to this: he had given a great deal of attention to it because he knew that that House would never agree to legislation which did away with existing rights, and rights which had grown up and had been settled—very often at sacrifices of much time and money—and rights which the House was not going to take away without very good cause being shown. The right hon. gentleman well appreciated this, and so did his advisers. He said that the Bill was not going to deal with existing rights at all, excepting theoretical rights. He (the hon. member) had looked at it from every point of view, and had come to the conclusion that the so-called maintenance of existing rights was a delusion and a sham, that the rights of the people, as far as water was concerned, were interfered with in many ways indeed. To make that clear, let him say he would not go deeply into theoretical matters—that for practical purposes rivers were made perennial and intermittent. The original division of waters was into public and private ; but they might for practical purposes call them perennial and non-perennial. In perennial streams, as the law now stood, every riparian proprietor was entitled to a reasonable share of the whole of the water that flowed in that river. What the right hon. gentleman pro posed to do in that Bill was: he would take what he called “a normal flow”—whatever that might mean—and whatever was not “a normal flow,” he said, was “flood water.” Of the normal flow every riparian proprietor was to have a reason able share, and in the existence of flood water every proprietor was to take as much as he liked, subject to certain conditions. It must be clear at once that the normal flow—however they were to gauge it—was less than the amount of water in a perennial stream which a riparian proprietor might now claim. Then the Bill said that, subject to existing rights, every person was to have a reasonable share in the normal flow, and of the excess or flood he could take as much as he liked, subject to certain conditions. What did “existing rights” mean? So much did the committee appreciate the difficulty that they refused to define what “existing rights” meant. He pressed upon them to define “existing rights,” and he pressed upon the Minister who moved this Bill—the Minister of Lands. He (Sir Henry) said: “Do you mean by existing rights ’ the existing law, because if you do, then your Bill is an absurdity, because you say that a man shall take less water, subject to his right to take more water.” So that, if existing rights meant the law of the land as it was at present, the thing was an absurdity, and, of course, it interfered with rights, because existing rights now would be a right to take a share of the whole of the water in the stream, whether it was normal or not normal, whether it was flood or not flood. Then he said, “If you don’t mean that, do you mean by existing rights, rights by award, by judgment, or registered servitude or by agreement? If so, put it in your Bill.” The committee would not say that. He asked the right hon. gentleman now: what did he mean by “existing rights”?

Existing rights is a matter of proof on evidence—not a matter of definition.

I am afraid I have not made myself in the least plain to the right hon. gentleman. We will take the case of a river, say, at Oudtshoorn The river comes down full right to the top of its banks. That riparian proprietor has now the right to take out a reasonable share in the whole of that water. He may have done it for five, ten, or fifteen years. Now, by this Bill you are going to divide that water into two parts, one part you call the normal flow and the other part you call the flood. In the normal flow, you say you shall only have a reasonable share. In the flood water, you say you must take what you like. Then it is perfectly clear, surely, that his reasonable share now is not something less than the whole of the water. Therefore, I say, if you mean “existing rights” by law, it is an absurdity. You must mean existing rights as established by judgment, contract, prescription, or servitude, or by award. But you must not say that a man’s rights are not being damaged ; they are being done away with. But even if it is only by judgment, award, or contract, look at the anomalous position in which we are in regard to water.

Proceeding, Sir Henry said that these judgments, awards, or contracts were all based upon the old principle of perennial streams, and they would have to be interpreted to the crack of doom on the basis of the old Law of perennial streams, and, notwithstanding this Bill, they would have to continue to be so interpreted. The more one thought of it, the more difficulty he saw in this attempt to try and alter the existing law, and at the same time to maintain all rights which were based upon the old law. He did not see how it was possible; he did not know how it could be done. To his mind, it was a perfect delusion. The strongest argument in support of his contention was this: that when he asked the committee to put down plainly in their legislation what they meant, and not let people have to go and fight out the meaning of every word, the committee would not, because they did not know what to do. The committee did not then know which to put in, and they did not know to-day which to put in. He said then the idea that existing rights were to be preserved was an erroneous idea, and it would only lead to much litigation and much expense. Having premised that, he would now like to try and point out, as far as he could, what was the object of this portion of the Bill, and see whether the same object could not be gained without this great change in the law. The object, said the right hon. gentleman, was to try and catch the water running to the sea. Apparently, he found that he could not do that without altering the whole of the law and abolish perennial streams. Now, the right hon. gentleman must remember that when he spoke about legislation in Cape Colony, the whole basis upon which that law was founded was upon the definition of what was a perennial stream or not.

Now, he wanted to abolish all this. He took away these rights of the people of this country when he says that the stream is not the property of the man whose land it runs through. He says that he would divide his public stream into two, and would call one part the normal flow and the other the flood flow. Did the right hon. gentleman or his advisers consider the position when they brought this Bill into the House. What would every hon. member who was acquainted with the rivers of this country say when he heard that in the Bill, as originally introduced, “normal flow” excluded every freshet, no matter how small, which was actually proposed to be made “flood water.” They forgot that what was a flood to the upper proprietor was only a reasonable flow to the lower. The whole legislation of the Act depended upon what they called normal flow. Therefore, they would have expected that upon a matter of this sort they would have heard something of the principles upon which it was intended to arrive at the “normal flow.” It was comparatively easy to lay down the principle for the guidance of Water Courts in dealing with perennial streams, but how was the Water Court going to deal with the normal flow? The whole legislation hinged upon that, and how was this to be done? In no other way than by regulation. Before they abolished the whole of the common law of the country, which had been in existence for over a hundred years, and gave the power into the hands of the Water Court, surely the House had a right to know how they were going to act in this matter.

The Cape Act of 1909 was panic legislation. A lady had constructed certain works, into which she intended to take water from a river. Then she went to the Water Court, which said the river was a perennial stream, and that she could not do it. There was a great outory, and eventually the Act of 1909 was passed. The matter had been referred to a Select Committee, and in bringing the subject before the House, Mr. Sauer said the object of the committee was to deal with one matter—to give the riparian owner the right to impound a reasonable share of the overflow. That Act differed in toto from the Bill before the House, in that it maintained the whole fabric of the perennial stream, and all that the legislation did was to take the perennial stream, ascertain what was the ordinary flow, and the excess that might be stored. He (Sir Henry) thought he had shown that the proposal in this Bill was tried to be obtained by making an entire change in the law in regard to perennial streams, and it must lead to endless confusion and any amount of litigation. Side by side with the new law they would have to maintain their old law. Was it not possible to attain all this and to catch the surplus water without making these drastic changes? Supposing they had a certain number of riparian proprietors along a river, so long as there was one riparian proprietor who did not get the water that he required for his irrigation, they could not talk of water running away to the sea. When every riparian proprietor was provided with his water needs, then the excess was what might be called surplus water. That was a quantity which they could deal with just as easily as they could under the complicated provisions which the Minister proposed. Where was the practical difficulty? Men had put up sills and weirs, constructed in such a way that when they had a sufficiency of water the surplus was treated as flood water. There was no more difficulty in doing that than there was in doing what the right hon. gentleman proposed in the way of normal flow and excess normal flow. It was the same water that ran to the sea. The next point is storage. It was now proposed that a man should have the right to store his reasonable share of what was called the normal flow of flood water. That was a thing which must be approached with caution. Those of them who had had to deal with water knew that there was nothing that played a greater part in the distribution than the “afloop” and “uitslag.” There was no doubt that a certain amount of waste went on, and if a man could store his water and use it when and where he wanted it, he certainly would not waste water, which now he did waste. If he could store his water, which he was not entitled to do now, what was to become of the afloop? In a large number of cases the afloop water played a very prominent part. In the very last case from Worcester, the main complaint of the people was that they did not get the afloop. The speaker called attention to a case which came to his notice at Oudtshoorn. There, fifty years ago, so the blacksmiths had told him, they used to have to dig holes in the river to obtain moisture so that they could cool their tyres. Now there was a bridge there which bore his honoured name, the only material tribute of a grateful country to himself. A judge had remarked that by what seemed to him to be subtraction above they got addition below. (Laughter.) But, of course, there was really no subtraction ; but in narrow valleys the irrigated ground acts as a sponge. If they were going to irrigate in this less wasteful manner by taking out water where they wanted it and no more, then he did not know where they were going to get this steady seepage. He was afraid they were going to disturb the law so far as the rights of the man below were concerned; certainly it was not an easy thing to dispose of without due inquiry and they should be very, very careful as to what they laid down. Then they came to another great change. Public streams which the right hon. gentleman made public streams would never have been public streams before, and perhaps the ignorance alluded to by the Minister arose from the fact that people did not know these were public streams. If people were under the impression that a number of streams in the country were not private property then they were wrong. There was quite a large amount of water that was private property. Out of anything but a perennial stream a man could take as much as he liked. The Act of 1906 was introduced to deal with those Karoo rivers where a man could take out as much as he liked ; so could the man above. The idea was to give them protection for their works. The right hon. gentleman had gone very much further. He did not recognise any private ownership except rain water that flowed on the surface of the land. The moment, however, this water came into a fixed channel then it was public water. He put the case of water flowing down kloofs into a perennial stream, of which a man had been accustomed to have a share. The water from these kloofs was not perennial, though they ran for a certain period of the year, and they helped to a great extent to keep the river going. That owner had been entitled to use the whole of the water from the kloofs. Under the Bill of his right hon. friend, that became public water, and must be distributed. That was an enormous change, which people ought to be aware of before they yielded to the blandishments of his right hon. friend, who said that their rights were not being tampered with. It was a great and vital change that was being made in this connection in the Bill which was before the House. How did his hon. friend propose to deal with flood water where there were no normal floods? How about the Karoo streams, which could not be called intermittent or perennial? Surely he was not going to let the first man who got the water grab it? He presumed that his right hon. friend was not going to allow that. His right hon. friend proposed that anybody who wanted to get a share of that water must get protection. The Water Court would fix something—Heaven alone knew what. ‘The second proprietor would get protection against the first ; the third would get protection against the second, and each would get protection against the other. How was this water to be distributed? There was not a single word in the Bill to show how this water would be distributed.

The Water Court.

By rule of thumb as it pleases. You first take away a man’s rights in this Bill and then you calmly say “Leave it to the Water Court.” If that sort of thing suits the right hon. gentleman, then I am afraid that it won’t suit most of the people of this country. Continuing, he said he wished to know the principles which would guide the members of the Water Court in coming to a decision as to the amount of water which a man would have. The right hon. gentleman proposed to deprive the man of his present rights. The man thought, “I can take the water.” His right hon. friend said, “No; you shall not; I will make it public.” How much? On what principle? Were they going to adopt the principle of the much-despised perennial stream, that the right of one person was something consistent with the right of the other? Would they distribute on the amount of land that was under irrigation? Or would they take it on the amount of land that could be irrigated? Were they going to take into consideration other sources of supply? There was not a word in the measure to guide the House. There was nothing in the Bill to show on what principle rights that were taken away were going to be given back.

The House ought to have that information in order to ascertain whether the Bill was based on sound principles which they could endorse and accept. There was another question which the Minister was going to deal with. It was that unfortunate principle upon which it seemed impossible to give this country any rest, namely, what is the right of a man to water that rises on his own land? Years ago the rule was that the right was absolute. Now, some time ago it was pointed out that all water must rise on someone’s land, so that if they had had this old Cape principle that all water that rises on a man’s land belongs to him he would like to know what would have become of cultivation in this country. That was the original idea, that water rising on a man’s land was his own. That idea was upset by the Privy Council. Then the Courts said that when a stream flowed down to another man’s land the former had the right to the water unless it had flowed down to a lower proprietor for a certain period, say thirty years. In the Act of 1906 another change was made. It was not in the original Bill, but was introduced by the right hon. member for Victoria West. It was a new idea, namely, that the lower proprietor must have naturally used the water for thirty years. He thought that the Minister proposed another way of dealing with this. Why? Nobody was asking for it. Why harass people by having another change? There would be a number of cases before the precise meaning of the clause was established. The clause safeguarded lower riparian owners when the stream had flowed in a defined channel for 30 years. In the Transvaal there would be an outcry for a shorter period, and also in Rhodesia, which they hoped would join the Union before long. They would want the period shorter, say ten years. On the other hand, the Minister had left out a number of very useful provisions that were contained in the Cape Act of 1906. It perhaps only required his attention directed to them to have them restored. He now came to a bigger point. The Minister said that it was not his intention to interfere with Municipalities, All he could say was that according to the Bill he could interfere in every way with Municipalities. That matter had been very carefully gone into, and unfortunately there were too many instances which showed that, as the Bill was drafted, the Minister and the Director of Irrigation could interfere very much indeed with Municipalities. If it were not intended to deal with Municipalities, why could not the right hon. gentleman exclude them? Two Municipalities were already excluded. They should not leave inferences, where they could clearly state what they intended. The hon. and learned member referred to the Bill introduced by Mr. Schreiner, which, he said, did not put in plainly that the lower proprietors should have water. Then it was said that it was going to be made clear the next time. In the Bill of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort in 1906 it had not been made a whit clearer, but the Court held that such was the intention of the Legislature.

He went on to say that what he would strongly urge upon the right hon. gentleman was that he should leave those words out and add something. The question was whether they were going, in order to catch water which was flowing to waste, to abolish the whole of their common law, on which the country had built up all its legislation and all its rights for the last 100 years? Was it necessary? Would it not be much simpler to adopt some other method? Let them keep their law and not interfere with it, but devise some scheme by which they could catch that water which was running to the sea. That was the whole problem, and surely it was not necessary, in order to solve that, that they should interfere with all those rights, which must inevitably lead to a large amount of litigation. He warned the House, after studying the Bill for some months, that he saw litigation in almost every line of the Bill. It was difficult to put into words provision for every case, and that was why lawyers repeated words after they had stood the test of time and decisions. Why abolish their common law, upon which a great deal of time and money had been spent, and why start with a new system of law which would require more than a hundred years before it would ever be made clear as to how it was going to work or prejudice the country? Therefore, he would object to the second reading of the Bill so long as the second part remained. (Hear, hear.)

said that he might say at once that there was no other authority on irrigation for whom he had a greater respect than the hon. member who had just spoken ; but he was afraid that his assistance to them in connection with that Bill had been all in the nature of criticism, which broke down rather than built up. If there were faults in the Bill, they had, to a certain extent, to thank the hon. member for it, because, if he had intended to assist them, he could have done so very materially with his wide experience and ripe legal knowledge of that important subject. During the recess he (Mr. Becker) had tried to find out what the public thought of the Bill, and he could assure the hon. member that they were satisfied with it, that they were longing for it, and hoping that it would go through the House as it stood. There was no doubt that it would be impossible for them to bring in a Bill that would satisfy everybody, and if they looked to the history of similar measures, they would see that that was the case. As to the Bill of 1906, introduced by the, hon. member for Fort Beaufort, he could assure him that the country owed him a great debt of gratitude for introducing that Bill, because during the past six years irrigation had gone ahead tremendously. The present Bill was based practically on that Bill, but with improvements. He agreed with the hon. member (Sir H. H. Juta) that Act 40 of 1909 was panic legislation, but that was because an extraordinary state of affairs had arisen. He was afraid that the hon. member had used his knowledge and experience to place conditions before hon. members not exactly as they were; for instance, he had spoken of normal flow in intermittent streams, but there could be no such thing. They had never been able to deal with intermittent streams, and no one had had any rights with regard to these streams; and that Bill proposed to give them certain rights. The hon. member spoke of what had happened in the lower reaches of the Olifants River, which had now been made a paradise, because they were able to use the flood water. Under the old law, a man had no right to get water from the upper reaches, and have a furrow across his neighbour’s property, unless the latter consented to his getting a part of the flood water, but under the present Bill a man could not nullify what a lower proprietor had done ; and that was the real reason why nothing whatever had been done to extend irrigation on intermittent streams. They had done their best to lay before the House a Bill that would apply to the conditions of the country at the present time, and which, he made bold to say, would revolutionise irrigation, but not in the way that the hon. member (Sir H. Juta) had stated. If there was one difficulty, it was the difficulty of defining what was a perennial stream. Let them turn to the reports of the Courts of Law and see. As time went on, the constant irrigation on slopes of a river led to what was called “uitslag,” and they were endeavouring to introduce this principle of normal, instead of perennial flow, to obviate the difficulties. The hon. member had made a great point of vested rights, which he said the Minister intended to take away. (An HON. MEMBER: “Hear, hear.”) The hon. member said “Hear, hear,” but surely he did not understand that the water was being wasted and running to the sea. (Hear, hear.) What vested rights were they going to take away? The Bill stated that all existing rights would be preserved.

They were simply going to deal with water that was not being utilised. The existing rights, as far as perennial streams were concerned, had already been established. They need not be afraid of existing rights at all. The Bill simply stated that a man should not only be entitled to store his normal flow, but his flood water as well. In winter time they knew that millions and millions of gallons rushed off to the sea, and they wanted to give a man an opportunity of using this water. This was the whole crux of the case, and that was why they made a definition of what was a normal and what was an abnormal flow. From his experience as a farmer in the South-Western districts, and especially at Oudtshoorn, he made bold to say that as much water as could be utilised by the furrows was being utilised, and their only salvation was the storage of flood water. He was talking from the point of view of the man who was on the ground. This Bill meant an enormous benefit to them. He hoped hon. members would assist in making it a good Bill—(hear, hear)—because it was necessary for all people who had irrigation at heart, and he hoped the second reading would be passed. An important amendment was made in the Bill dealing with the Water Courts. Now, he had had a good deal of experience of Water Courts, and he made bold to say that he was voicing the opinion of everyone who had dealings with these Water Courts, when he said they were unsatisfactory. He was afraid that local knowledge had not always been used to the best advantage. He hoped that the Minister would make the appointment of the expert who would sit on the Water Court into an out and out appointment. He also suggested that the provision as to Parliamentary sanction should be amended. The Bill proposed that Parliamentary sanction should be obtained for schemes of over £30,000 and over 30 years. He should like to see the amount raised to £40,000, and the period to 35 years, otherwise the effect might be, in many cases, to encourage false economy. He hoped hon. members would look at this Bill from the practical side, and assist its passage through the House, because he was sure it was a measure that would lead to the advancement of irrigation throughout the length and breadth of the Union. (Hear, hear.)

said he saw the Bill was going to be read a second time. His hon. friend (Mr. Becker) and those behind him had got the bit in their teeth, and he did not think they would listen to the words of his hon. friend the member for Harbour (Sir Henry Juta), who had spoken so sensibly as to the law. He hoped that the result he saw looming in the distance would not take place, and that was that a good many of these enthusiasts would not find themselves in company with many other gentlemen outside the Supreme Court. (Hear, hear.) Many of these poor men were dragged down here about some tuppenny-ha’penny dispute as a result of passing legislation in a hurry dealing with private rights. As soon as they began to tamper with private rights, they were going to get into the hands of the lawyers sooner or later. He only hoped it would not be sooner, because he was anxious to see irrigation in this country a great success. There was one thing absolutely necessary in this country, so far as that was concerned, and that was hard work. It wouldn’t be done by Acts of Parliament. There was plenty of irrigation going on at the present time under the existing law, but it was going on because people were trusting to hard work and not to Acts of Parliament. The hon. member (Mr. Becker) said something about the lower reaches of the Olifants River, how they had been turned into a garden by irrigation. That was quite true. He could tell the hon. member what was going to happen to the lower reaches of the Olifants River. Under this Bill they were not going to be turned into a garden. The upper reaches would be turned into a garden, but the lower reaches would remain as they were at present. This was an upper proprietors’ Bill, if it were anything. His hon. friend said that the lower reaches had been turned into a Garden of Eden. How did he account for that under the existing law? Under existing legislation the lower reaches had been converted and yet his hon. friend said that there must be changes. To him (the speaker) his hon. friend seemed to be inconsistent. He had had something to do with irrigation in that House for the last thirty years, and he wanted to point out two distinct things—one thing was that the irrigation law was made for irrigation and that law had contented the Colony for about thirty years and had done something practical. The other part of the law was dealing with water rights and the rights of private property, which was a very different thing and a policy on which they embarked in 1906. Their appetites having been whetted, they took a bigger leap in 1909. By tampering with water rights little had been done to advance irrigation. Much could be done under the irrigation law which was passed in 1877, but it lay dormant for about twenty years. Then an example was set be some public-spirited people in the Robertson district. A canal was cut out under the then existing law, and that set a good example. (Since that time, under the old Act, many canals had been built. It was that old law which had been instrumental in advancing irrigation. The River Boards had nothing to do with the advance of irrigation. That had been a very useful provision, but it had never been carried into effect. His hon. friend behind him said that they wanted practical men to settle these matters. He said that practical men were the men to deal with these rights. The next moment he denounced the Water Courts, because they comprised practical men. How was it that they had advanced so little? He thought they had progressed backwards, because 100 years ago they found practical men who decided these questions of water rights. They tried to bring back the state of affairs of a hundred years ago, and his hon. friend now said that these practical men were actuated by self-interest. He must confess that he was bewildered. First, his hon. friend told them that the practical man had self-interest, and then he told them that what they wanted was practical men to settle these delicate points of law. His hon. friend had spoken about the lawyers, and he was afraid that in such a Bill they would hear the piping of the lawyers before long. If they told him that this Bill settled anything, then he said it was like talking to children. His hon. friend had done away with the intermittent and the perennial stream, and substituted the normal and the abnormal flow. It was just as difficult to tell the difference between intermittent and perennial as it was to tell the difference between normal and abnormal.

Exactly the same.

And where are you? You are in the hands of your old friends the lawyers again. Continuing, he said there was another point which would give a lot of trouble. Perhaps his hon. friends would take the trouble to read the definition of “normal flow,” which said: “A public stream shall not be deemed to have a normal flow unless a portion of the actual flow be derived from springs, seepage, melting snows, the steady drainage from swamps or vleis, or other like sources of supply.” Let them take the ordinary Karoo river, about which so much had been said that afternoon. That was now taken to be an intermittent stream. The question would then come: Was it a public stream or not, and had it got a normal flow? There was hardly one of these streams that did not derive some of its flow from a spring. It would be an almost impossible thing to decided–––ten times more difficult to decide than if it were perennial or intermittent. He confessed that when he read this definition there seemed to arise before him a vista of endless litigation. He did hope for some comprehensive Act to do away with the Transvaal law and give the Cape law its place. He thought that the Cape law was better than the Transvaal law. When they came to the question of water rights he agreed with his hon. friend that it would be better to let it stand over or take some particular point that was wrong and alter that, and wait a little until a good comprehensive law was introduced, because a Bill that turned water rights upside down was going to confuse instead of assist the people of the country. His hon. friend behind him had said that they could not deal with the flow of flood water now. How could he say that? Had he read the Act of 1909, which specially gave the power?

Perhaps they imagined that they were going to make every farm on the Karoo blossom like the Garden of Eden, because they were going to give rights they had not got now. Then the hon. member said they had not got the right in regard to intermittent streams. Had he read section 7 of the Act of 1906? To deal with the abnormal flow, they were introducing a new principle for litigation, when they had got everything they wished in existing legislation. It was only another example of that mania for new laws, and of thinking that the country was going to be prosperous by having new laws. He maintained that the existing laws could supply everything sought to be gained by the Bill. The law enabled them to store flood water on a perennial stream, and enabled them to deal with the whole flow of an intermittent stream. That flow was only composed of rain water, it belonged to the man whose land it ran past. Some people had an idea that in any country in the world they could catch all water before it went to the sea. He had never heard of one. He had recently been to what was probably the best irrigated country in the world. There was one river without a drop of water in normal times. It was taken out by canals. The river was as dry as the one that ran past Beaufort West, and reminded him very much of it. He saw that river after there had been a few days’ rain in the mountains—a big flood of turbid water rushed to the sea. All the canals had all the water they wanted. And when a flood occurred in an intermittent stream, no number of dams would stop it forcing its way right through. Upon those streams, under the existing law, the owners were given the right to use what they could, of course, not to the detriment of other people. What was the particular demand for changing the old principle in legislation? He hoped that they would not regret it. He had had a little experience in regard to some laws he assisted in passing, and he was not sure that they had always been wise. In 1876 they introduced the Right of Passage of Water Act. He then thought a great deal of the matter, that that was the Magna Charta of irrigation, and they passed the law. It proved to be unworkable. In 1882, with the assistance of Mr. Leonard, they altered the law, and thought they had made it quite safe. They reckoned without their host—the host of lawyers! (Laughter.) And they neutralised that excellent Bill. In 1899 they had another try. He went to the attack for the third time, and with the assistance of Mr. Solomon and Mr. Schreiner, they thought that they had got the thing fast at last. Again, the lawyers were too many for them. (Laughter.) Then, joined by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, they went to the attack in 1906, and then, apparently, the enemy retired. Now they had what they wanted. The hon. member for Cape Town Harbour would tell them that it was not perfect, and there were still some loopholes. He really mentioned this to show the danger of thinking they would get something they particularly wanted by an Act of Parliament which disturbed existing rights and which disturbed the existing law. They might be pretty sure that there was a large body of opinion in this country hostile to them at the beginning, and trying to defeat it, and as they could do what they liked with the laws now on the Statute Book, he failed to see any reason for trying to do it by a new Act. There were other features in the Bill which he merely mentioned, because the House would come to them afterwards. On going into committee, they certainly would require careful looking into. “This Bill,” he continued, “is a Government Bill. It is a Bill to put things in the hands of Government that never were in the hands of Government. It is a Bill to enable the Government to do things which may or may not be right, but which seriously interfere with the private rights of people.” (Ministerial cheers.) It enabled the Government to create a River Board. Under the existing law, this could only be done by the will of the people. He was not prepared to say that there might not be good reasons for that. He knew these River Boards. He had always thought it would be a valuable provision to make. In fact, the greatest novelty of the Act of 1906 was the River Board. Unfortunately, hitherto it had not been brought into working order. Presently, he believed, they were going to have a River Board for one river, the Eerste River, and perhaps for the Breede River, too. It was highly necessary. But to try to force these Boards upon the public might mean a big mistake now. And he would rather they worked on the lines laid down in the Irrigation Act. If they had forced people to make Irrigation Boards the Act would have been a failure to-day. They waited a long time. The Irrigation Boards came at last, as they thought they would when they passed the Bill. They had been of the greatest use to the country, and their service was increasing today. Under existing legislation the River Boards might come into being and be of very great use. But then again the Bill gave Government the power to go anywhere and to make an irrigation work without consulting Parliament. “But,” he exclaimed, “what is Parliament? It is not thought much of in these days. Perhaps it is just as well to give Government the right to make an irrigation work anywhere and the right to impose rates. Because if the Government makes an irrigation work they should be able to impose rates. But to say that they can come into my district and make an irrigation work whether I want it or not, and then to impose rates to pay for that work—it is going a little far. Of course, it is a new start, and these are the days of new starts—(laughter)—and it may be a good thing.” Proceeding, he said that on going through the Bill many little points gave him the impression that where the law was altered it was always in favour of giving the Government autocratic powers and taking away those powers out of the hands of private individuals who would have to pay for them. It might be that he had not read the Bill carefully enough. It might be that some of the amendments to be put on the Order Paper were in a contrary direction. He hoped they were. He hoped that some little notice would be taken here and there of the fact that there was such a thing as a Parliament in this country. The Minister ought certainly not to proceed further with the Bill until he had got these amendments on the Paper, because they might be, for all they knew, beating the air, and might find a list of amendments which would take away all the criticisms which might justly be put here and there on the Bill. The question of subterranean water was one which he understood only applied to one part of the country. That was a very great infringement upon the ordinary rights. In every country where there was a water law and which had that subterranean water provision, the water belonged to the owner of the soil, and if he brought it to the surface the water was his to dispose of and to do anything he pleased with. That was the law. (An HON. MEMBER: No.) It happened that he had been looking up the law in other countries, and that was the law. And it was a very plain common-sense law too. But apparently they were going to alter that. He thought that would require very careful study, because legislating for one particular district was always dangerous and might bring them into a mess. The thought, he knew, was prevalent in every mind that by making a good Act they were going immediately to advance irrigation. What was wanted was that they should apply the laws now in operation, and above all not continue to allow water to be wasted in this country. They talked of waste of water. That was not half as detrimental as the water which was being wasted under irrigation. Let them look at the Worcester district, where the water was running to waste, while other parts of the country were calling out for want of water. They saw water running into swamps, while other people were dying for want of water. The piece of ground between Worcester and Hex River always struck him as an eyesore; and if there was an example of how not do it, that was one.

Private rights.

Not private, but public, rights. Continuing, he said that there had been an allusion made, he thought by the hon. member who had introduced it, to the Spanish law. He could assure him that if they had the same sort of feeling here as there was in Spain amongst the irrigators, this country, as the hon. member behind him had said, “would blossom like a rose.” (Laughter.) There they had entrusted the water rights to a person elected by themselves, and that man, in times of drought, had the power to cut the water off from one man and give it to another, and so keep the crops alive. The whole system was worked on that basis, of co-operation. And in an old-fashioned and undemocratic country like Spain they had the co-operative system carried out to its highest extent. Were they ever to get that in South Africa with their large holdings? A man here had to hire people to work his holding, and that system meant that they could only do one thing and put it under lucerne ; but to suppose that they were going to get the full benefit until they had the population and people obliged to live on small plots of ground and cultivate assiduously, they might wait till the Greek Kalends. It was only by a very slow process, indeed, by gradual education, by the proper use of the water and things of that sort, that they would ever get that system of irrigation so perfect. It was not science or Acts of Parliament that brought perfection in agriculture or other industries—it was hard work and solid industry. They had passed the time when they got “rich while sleeping,” as a friend of his had said. He could promise his right hon. friend that when the Bill came into committee it would receive very close scrutiny because it would need it. If he thought, however, that he was going to bring health, wealth and prosperity into the country by changing the words “perennial” and “intermittent” into “normal” and “abnormal,” he would be very glad, but he very much doubted it.

said that he had listened with the greatest interest to the debate, and it seemed as if the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) was violently in favour of irrigation, but he regretted that when the right hon. member had been a member of the Select. Committee which dealt with the matter last year he had not given them the benefit of his good advice. He had looked at the report of the Select Committee, from which it appeared that it had met 13 times, and the right hon. gentleman had only attended four times; and he believed that the longest time he put in at any one sitting was ten minutes, when he devoted it to speaking of “new fangled notions,” and against the whole idea. (Laughter.) From what he had said that afternoon, he did not think the right hon. member had even read the Bill (Laughter.) He had referred to the irrigation laws of Spain and Italy, and hoped that they in this country might ultimately arrive at the condition in which they were now in those countries. He (Mr. Neser) had visited Italy, and found that in 1864 a sweeping change had been made—it had got into the same difficulty in which they found themselves here ; and a Bill had been introduced, sweeping away all private interests, and making the streams all public. If they did what they did in Italy, they would make this country advance by leaps and bounds. Unfortunately, in South Africa, that could not be done. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) objected to anything that came from the Transvaal. He asked why they should not put the Cape Act in force through the whole of the Union, and he pointed to the proviso with reference to subterranean water as an instance of the weakness of the Transvaal Act. But, if he had examined the conditions, he would have seen how wise that proviso was. Lord Milner appointed a commission to investigate the water Laws of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. That commission went carefully into the question of subterranean water, and it was found that this flowed through the dolomite area in subterranean streams. A concessionaire pumped water from this subterranean area for supplying Johannesburg with water, with the result that the farms were denuded of water, wherefore it was enacted that no farmer could sell the water on his farm. The right hon. gentleman had pointed out how many attempts had been made to amend the water laws, but in his (Mr. Neser’s) opinion that was no disgrace, because it simply showed that the people of the Cape Colony had made an attempt to deal with a very difficult problem. If anyone would study the Bill, he would see that it was a copy of both the Cape and Transvaal laws. What they had a right to expect was, that such an old Parliamentary hand as the right hon. member for Victoria West would see that the best legislation was put through.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

continuing his speech, said that he agreed with the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) that what the country wanted was hard work, but during the course of his experience he had found that people worked hard for the greater part of the year, and got no reward for their labours, because drought came along. What was wanted was the conservation of waters that were now wasted. This Bill aimed at giving people the opportunity of conserving water that now ran away to the sea. Irrigation had for some years past been carried on with a considerable measure of success, and he claimed that it was through taking advantage of the facilities afforded by the irrigation laws that this had been possible. There were weak points both in the Cape Act and the Transvaal Act, but people who had experience of working under these Acts had found the weak points, and were now attempting to remedy them. He did not claim that the Water Court, as proposed in the Bill, would be a perfect court—the Supreme Court was not perfect. Some people might impute motives to the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, and say that he wished to maintain the supremacy of the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, lawyers were necessary, like so many evils. (Laughter.) The Bill was an honest attempt to serve the country. If they found that the proposed Water Courts did not answer, they could amend the law. He hoped they would not be afraid to put aside old laws, if necessary for the welfare of the country. The Bill was based on the principle that every riparian proprietor was entitled to a fair use of the water running past his property.

said he understood the Minister of Lands to say in answer to the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir H. Juta) that he was inclined to think that he might safely withdraw the clauses specially safeguarding the Rand Water Board and the Pretoria Municipality, because he (Mr. Fischer) thought they were adequately protected by section 136 of the Bill, which said: “Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed as affecting any rights which under any law now or hereafter in force any local authority or any person whatever may possess or have acquired in relation to the taking or use of water from a public stream.” Without the advice of gentlemen of the long robe he (Mr. Chaplin) would not be prepared to say that the rights of the Rand Water Board with regard to the subterranean water would adequately be secured by that section. In connection with the Rand Water Board there were certain facts which it was only right should be placed before the House.” The Rand Water Board supplied water for practically the whole of the Witwatersrand area, to the Johannesburg and other Municipalities along the Reef, and to practically all the gold-producing companies in the area. There were approximately half-a-million people depending on the Rand Water Board for their water. The Board acquired its rights from certain companies which had secured them before the war in accordance with Transvaal law. The Board had a loan of £3,400,000. In 1908 it could supply 3½ million gallons per day. Now it supplied 7½ to 8 million gallons per day, and there was not enough water. He would simply say that the sources upon which the Board relied, on the advice of experts, had not realised expectations. From certain bore-holes it was always estimated to get from 8 to 8½-million gallons per day, but actually they had not been able to pump more than 5 million gallons a day from this source, while at the present time the most that could be got therefrom was 3,800,000 gallons a day. The hon. member pointed put that according to the Act the Board was able to get 10,000,000 gallons a day from the dolomite sources, while the Board had also the power to purchase water from mining companies who were empowered to sell under certain conditions. In spite of all, however, there had been an inadequate supply of water on the Rand, both for municipal and mining requirements. What the Board was face to face with was that it must provide a permanent and further supply of water which would enable it to provide for its customers—15 or 18 million gallons per day. But owing to the Act limiting the amount to be obtained from subterranean sources that supply must be increased from a catchment area or some other method which might mean unlimited capital and unlimited compensation. Even if such a scheme were undertaken now it would take four or five years before it could be carried out. The fact remained that unless there was heavy rain the Board, would be short of water no later than August next. So, of course, the Board had to look around for a temporary increase of supply as well as a permanent source. In a Bill like that he thought provision should have been made for giving power to Municipalities to increase their supplies of water. Not only was there no provision of this kind, but the provisions that existed in the Bill made it more difficult for local authorities, more particularly in the Transvaal, to acquire sources of water supply. The question was what should be done. He thought the shortest method of dealing with the matter would have been to have allowed, under section 25, owners of farms to sell further quantities of water arising from the dolomite sources. He did not say that that would solve the problem everywhere, but what he did say was that it would help the local authorities concerned. He also pointed out that when mining companies were working they were allowed to sell water from the shafts to the Board, but if the company was not working then it was not allowed to sell. There was another point as to what should be done to allow the Board to acquire land on reasonable terms and to enable the Board to get further sources of water supply without having to pay unlimited compensation. He thought that additional power should be given the Governor-General to take steps to help local authorities in a case of that sort. He would probably be met by two arguments—that the local authorities wished to get land without paying a fair price and that the history of the Rand Water Board showed that owners had been unduly prejudiced. None would deny that the local authority should pay what was a reasonable price, but what was also reasonable was he thought, that the Government should give powers of expropriation to, or exercise on behalf of the local authority powers of expropriation which would ensure fair compensation, and that exorbitant prices should not be given. The hon. member for Klerksdorp had alluded to the history of the Klip River Valley. He said that a concession was given to a local authority, and that they put in heavy pumping machinery and pumped the valley dry. There was, strictly speaking, no concession at all, because the rights now belonging to the Rand Water Board were lawfully acquired by private companies, and by them transferred, to the Rand Water Board. The companies complied with the necessary legal formalities, and the Board inherited those rights. Then there was the question of what happened to the farmers lower down the valley. There had been a great deal of evidence led on one side and the other. He did not propose to go into the technical details. He was quite prepared to admit that the farmers in the valley had suffered considerable hardship. (Ministerial cheers.) He was prepared also to admit that some part of the hardship was due to the operations of the Rand Water Board, but not the whole of it, because that seemed to bean engineering matter practically incapable of proof. It had to be remembered that the value of that land was practically made by the fact that it was in proximity to the Rand. If neither the town nor the mines were there, the value of that land would be infinitesimally smaller. When it came down to what was best in the interests of the country, it must be conceded that the interests of that community and of the industry on which the whole country depended must really receive very serious-consideration, even if it did involve a certain amount of hardship to certain individuals. He understood that the Minister had very great objections to putting into the Bill clauses, such as he had outlined, which would give the Board power to meet its temporary requirements, and assist it to obtain land at reasonable prices in connection with its permanent scheme. If that was so, the Government must take into consideration the position in which, if no assistance was given to the Board, the people of the Rand might find themselves before long. It was easy to say that the Rand was a local community, no more deserving of consideration than, say, Simon’s Town, which he understood was also in search of water, and that the Witwatersrand should be placed in the same-category as an ordinary municipality. The Transvaal Government had treated the matter as one of urgent national importance, and had not left it to be dealt with in a private Bill. In the general interest, it was right for the Government to do something to secure the Board against being compelled to pay exorbitant prices for land or rights which they might be compelled to buy, because it was perfectly obvious that the needs of the Rand in the question of water would have to be met in one way or the other. The question of price entered into the whole scheme very largely, because the larger the amount of capital the Board had to invest, the higher the standing charges became, and these would fall in equal proportions on the mining industry and the municipalities, and affect the price of water to every individual on the Rand. He did not wish to take an alarmist view of the position, but there had already been within the last few weeks a very serious shortage of water, and quite possibly this might occur again if nothing were done in the meantime. If there should be a dry season next season, it was practically certain there would be a very serious shortage of water, and if there were this serious shortage of water, it would be a disaster to the whole Union. Therefore he asked the Minister to give the matter his best attention and to see, either by including in the Bill the provisions he had suggested, or by undertaking the introduction of a Bill dealing with this matter, how he could relieve the urgent necessities of the Board.

admitted that the hon. member for Cape Town Harbour was an expert in irrigation matters, but there was a big difference between theory and practice, and the Bill would satisfy a demand which had existed for twenty years. The object of last year’s Select Committee was to make the Bill as effective as possible. Its principal points were perennial water, flood water, and subterranean water. The hon. member for Harbour had tried to alarm them about the perennial water, but the Bill need not frighten anybody. It would only help them. The water in the stream at Oudtshoorn was divided, and the lands were irrigated with it, with the result that they had a regular flow where there were formerly dry rivers. That was due to irrigation works. They could not irrigate with a weak stream, and there would be no surplus water, whilst if they led that water into a dam and distributed it once a week, there would be a surplus for the lower owners. The Act of 1909 protected the rights of farmers, and the present Bill would do the same. The hon. member for Harbour referred to him (the speaker) as an owner of higher riparian rights, but in every river there was only one such owner, whilst the Bill made provision for all owners. Every man was the owner of the water which fell on his ground, and that was quite right. A higher owner could not dam up the river to conserve the flood water for his own use, seeing that all the riparian owners had a right to it. Everybody could pump up subterranean water on his farm, but the Bill laid it down that no such water could be sold. Near Johannesburg that sort of thing had been done, and the result was that the river was dry. That must be stopped. Speaking as a practical farmer, he thought the Bill a good one, though it could not be expected to give universal satisfaction. It did no violence to vested interests, and hurt none of the lower owners, who would in fact have a right to a share of the flood water. He trusted that municipalities would be brought under the Bill, as that would prevent conditions such as now existed at Worcester, where in consequence of an old agreement water was led through the town into a sort of morass. He hoped that with a’ few amendments the Bill would become law.

strongly approved the principle of conserving water and preventing waste. The hon. member for Germiston had urged the Government to give more powers to the Rand Water Board, but he (the speaker), as an inhabitant of that district, hoped that nothing of the sort would be done. The population of Johannesburg paid £80,000 per annum for water, but whilst the Board delivered it to the mines at 5½d. per thousand gallons, the public had to pay 5s. 6d. The proportions were too unequal, and the municipality was not sufficiently represented on the Board. He feared that hon. members were too solicitous concerning the interest of the mines, and too callous when the interests of the people of Johannesburg were concerned. He was well acquainted with the injurious results which had arisen from the pumping of water from the Klip River—the farms in the neighbourhood were drying up. The Board had contrived to get power to pump ten million gallons per diem from the Klip River Valley, but at that moment were only able to obtain eight millions, and he trusted the Government would give them no greater powers nor any further facilities for the pumping of water out of the dolomite. That aspect of the question affected not the Klip River only, but the whole of the Transvaal might be injured. He thought the Select Committee might be able to abolish some of these bodies, for there were too many of these little governments or states within a State. He would vote for an amendment in that respect, but not for any scheme of expropriation of land.

said that he also represented a Johannesburg constituency, neighbouring on that of the hon. member who had just spoken, and he would like to deal with some of the statements that he had made with reference to the Rand Water Board. They heard so many extraordinary statements about what went on in Johannesburg by people who lived very far away, and perhaps had never been there themselves, that it made them more careful when hon. members who actually came from there gave countenance to statements so removed from the truth as the statement made by the hon. member for Vrededorp. He said that the Rand Water Board sold its water at 5½d. per thousand gallons to the mines, and 5s. 6d. per thousand gallons to the Municipality, and that the reason for this was that the mines were so strongly represented on the Board that they could do anything they liked. Well, if the hon. member had taken the trouble to read the law under which the Board operated, he would have seen that the Board was bound to supply water in bulk to all its contributors at one and the same price. It supplied water at 7½d. per thousand to the mines and 7½d. per thousand to the Municipalities in bulk, but by the time the Municipalities had distributed that to the consumers, and paid the cost of their pipes and distribution mains, etc., the price to the consumer worked out at very much more.

He hoped that extraordinary story would not go further. Before the present law was passed certain companies on the Klip River dolomite had the right to take all the water they could, and when the law said the companies should not pump more than ten million gallons a day the law was protecting the farmer.

The hon. member (Mr. Geldenhuys) was a member of the Volksraad at the time.

I maintain, however much sympathy the hon. member might command for the farmers, he had no right to object to water being pumped out of the dolomite, but against, the hard case he puts up you have to consider the hard case of the hundreds of thousands of people who want water. The Rand Water Board has been the means of cheapening one of the necessities of life. (Hear, hear.)

said he found it very difficult to follow the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), because the hon. member said the present law was splendid, but it was the same law that the hon. member opposed tooth and nail.

No, he didn’t.

He opposed it very strongly.

I helped to make it.

said the present measure, if taken fairly, made provision for the use of more water than before, and it tried to make the position more clear.

And fails. (Laughter.)

said the right hon. member for Victoria West stated that the Bill took away rights which a man had under common law. But if one took section 11 in conjunction with section 13 one would see that an attempt was made to deal with all streams on the same footing, and the Bill also tried to simplify the machinery. Section 13 said that a man should be entitled to use the surplus water subject to the rights of other persons and with permission of the Water Courts. The Act of 1909, which enabled people to use water which before that ran to waste, said of a perennial stream that a man should be entitled to a reasonable use of such water as there might be in excess of the normal flow of such streams. Now they had a slashing attack on the Bill, which defined the normal flow!

What is the definition?

The Water Court has power to define normal flow, and there are certain regulations to guide it in oonnnection with the normal flow and what is surplus water. Proceeding, Mr. Struben said he was going to support the second reading of the Bill—(hear, hear)—because it was an honest attempt to define a most difficult position—to give each riparian owner a share of the normal and surplus flow. Continuing, he said he thought that it was an excellent attempt that was being made to use water that was at present going to waste. But section 11 said “subject to all existing rights.” Did that mean a right laid down by a judgment of the Water Court, or was it the common law right? Was it intended to say what these existing rights were, or was it the intention to leave it as it was to be read in conjunction with the section to which he had made reference. Present legislation did not cover all the streams, and their one object was to use all the streams they could, and they wanted a definition to cover all streams, and he thought that the new definition met the case. This law would allow people to use water that was running to waste, though he thought that it would prove a handicap on the lower proprietor. He thought that the Minister might try and devise some scheme of compensation in the case of the man who was not able to come forward with his works within the specified time, but might be in a position to do so subsequently. The right hon. member for Victoria West had made the somewhat bald statement that subterranean water belonged to the man who brought it to the surface. But where a subterranean water was the source of a perennial stream the man was only entitled to his share and not to the whole. The law made a distinction. When it was a case of percolation then the man could have the whole, but; when there was a defined stream the man was only entitled to his share and not to the whole of the supply. Continuing, the hon. member said he thought that in this matter they were like Nero fiddling while Rome was burning. The damage was caused not by people using more than their share, but the enormous waste that went on through erosion. It was a matter that was simply mentioned by the Bill, but anybody who went through the country and looked into the matter would be horrified by the damage done by erosion, and he would urge the Minister to investigate this matter thoroughly and take practical steps by instructing farmers what to do and starting Government works to deal with it. The tendency of the Bill, he thought, was to strike at private enterprise in the way of engineering work. He thought the proper function of the Irrigation Department was to investigate large Government works, and to advise, to a certain extent, but there seemed to be a tendency on the part of the Department to undertake the whole of the work. He knew from experience that it was almost impossible for engineers to get enough work to keep them alive. He did not think that that was a proper way for the Government to deal with the matter. He was all for helping the farmer, for the reason that if the farming industry went—well, they might as well shut up shop. He thought that the Department, however, was going too far in undertaking all this detail work. He would, as he had said, support the second reading of the Bill, for he thought that it was an attempt to use—and that was the test—more water in South Africa than they were using at the present time.

maintained that existing rights were infringed by the Bill, not trivial rights, but rights of material value. If present irrigators had not enjoyed those rights the country would not have advanced as far as it had in the matter of irrigation. The Minister said that in the old Cape law, no provision was made for the proper utilisation of flood waters, and then complimented the hon. member for Oudtshoorn on his district being the pioneer district in irrigation. That district had been built up entirely on the utilisation of flood water, and nothing else. When they realised the advance they had made they should be very cautious about how they touched the fundamental basis of the old Roman-Dutch law, upon which the whole of their irrigation legislation in the past had been built. The old law laid down that every riparian owner should have the reasonable use of the stream to which his property was riparian. Now it was proposed to change that to reasonable use of the normal flow only, and in a vague sort of way, say, existing rights remain. The Bill carefully avoided saying what these rights were. In the Select Committee the Director of Irrigation was asked: “What do you mean by existing rights?” He replied: “Any existing local distribution of water.” That showed clearly that the Bill went only half-way. By existing rights was meant not only existing use. That was meant in the Bill. The term existing rights included what a man had by virtue of his title to his property. In the Bill no account was taken of that. The part of the Bill he took exception to was Chapter II. If they compared sections 22 and 25 they found that existing rights were affected, for no provision was made for works that might be constructed in the future. A great point was made of the fact that they were now doing away with perennial streams, because about perennial streams there had been a mass of litigation. They were removing perennial streams and substituting normal flow, so only shifting the burden of proof, which remained the same, from perennial on to normal flow. None knew what normal flow was. He cited what he thought a clear case of how existing rights would be affected. How would they fix the normal flow of the Breede River? In flood time there might not be enough for all the riparian owners if it was after a dry period. Another case was along the railway line from Breede River Station on to Worcester, where all the people were irrigating with private water. The Bill put intermittent streams on an equality with perennial streams. The lower owners would immediately move up and take rights above them which they had not before. He thought they could obtain all the benefits the Bill offered in bettering the machinery for distribution, and in perfecting the machinery of the Irrigation Department. As soon as they touched the fundamental basis of the law they ran a very grave risk. Much had been said on the Land Settlement Bill against expropriation. Here they were not expropriating, but confiscating people’s rights to property. He regretted very much that the Minister should have brought in these changes, that he should have substituted normal flow for reasonable use, and have left out perennial streams. Concluding, the hon. member said that he believed the second reading would go through, but in committee he would try and secure such amendments as would protect existing rights.

thought the Bill was a sufficient protection for all existing rights. Irrigation work and the planting of trees had been sadly neglected in the past. That was true not only in the Cape, but also in the Transvaal, where there was plenty of money. They heard a good deal at election times about the usefulness of irrigation, but it got no further, and yet it was very necessary that they should have big irrigation works carried out. The poor white question could only be solved in that way. It was simply a scandal that so much unused water was allowed to run into the sea, and he thought South Africa owed a debt of thanks to Oudtshoorn for the good example it had given. He was glad to see that provision was made to help in the making of dams, though he thought the conditions on which money was to be advanced in small sums were somewhat too severe, and should be amended in committee. For a loan not exceeding £500 it should not be necessary to call in an engineer, whilst if everything had first of all to go through the Department it would take a long time, and frighten the people off. Last year the Government did excellent work by helping with drills, and the same thing should be done with dams. They should show them-selves to be in earnest in this matter of irrigation, and if they spent a couple of millions on it annually, it would be money well invested.

said that the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Wessels) had just made the remark that the great future of the country depended upon the construction of dams. Now, the parts that he (Mr. Watermeyer) represented entirely depended upon the construction of dams and the storage of overflow water. Excellent as the Bill was, he felt that the construction put upon certain of the clauses left a feeling of indefiniteness. If they looked at clause 8, section 2, they would find the following: “All water which falls or naturally drains on to the surface of the land shall be the sole and undisputed property of the owner thereof, as long as it remains upon such land and does not join a publio stream.” That was very excellent, but how did they define what was a public stream? The Bill defined a public stream as follows: Public stream ’ shall mean a natural stream of water which, when it flows, flows in a known and defined channel (whether or not the channel is dry during any period) if the water thereof is capable of being applied to the common use of the riparian owners for the purposes of irrigation. A stream which fulfils those conditions in part only of its course, shall be deemed to be a public stream as regards that part only.” The essential of a stream was that it flowed, but it puzzled him, because the clause was going to give a set-back to the construction of dams in these dry parts. It was provided that the abnormal flow may be stored, but section 14 said that: “When a riparian owner has constructed or proposes to construct works for the storage or diversion of surplus or flood water, and desires to obtain protection for the works, he may make application to the Water Court for a permission under this section, submitting with the application full particulars as to the design of such works, their diversion or impounding capacity, and the use to be made of the water diverted or impounded thereby.” The objection he had to this was that it was laid down that so long as the water which fell upon one’s land, and naturally drained the land, and did not flow in a defined channel, that water may be stored, but as soon as it flowed in a defined channel it became a public stream. He asked any man, how was water going to drain if it did not get into a defined channel? The result was that an owner, upon his own farm, could not construct a single dam without getting into contact with objections by his neighbour. Then, again, in that part of the country dams must be constructed across the valleys or the defined channels of streams. Unless they went to the Water Court and urged the Water Court to give them leave to block up the channel, they could not construct their dam, and they would probably always have objections from the lower men to the construction of such dams. He hoped, when the Bill came into committee, that the definition of a public stream was going: to be altered, so as to meet the case of that part of the country where they had no such things as public streams. For the rest, he heartily supported the second reading of the Bill. He thought it was an excellent Bill, and that it would supply a long-felt want of a consolidation of our laws.

considered the Bill was of the first importance for his constituency, where they had thirteen perennial streams. The drier portion of his district was excellently suitable for irrigation by means of dams. He would support the Bill. He thought, however, it was a little too complicated, that too many Boards were to be created, and that those Boards had too much power. A good deal had been said about normal flow, but it was very difficult to define it, seeing that the level of the water was constantly changing. In order to have a fair division of the water they must have a clear definition of what was meant by normal flow. He considered existing rights were affected by clause 6, par. (g), which gave the Government and the River Board too much authority. It was also an encroachment on private rights to give the Water Board the power to remove a dam or weir. The Bill laid down the principle of expropriation of land subject to compensation, and that was the third Bill during the present session which made reference to that power, and now the River and Irrigation Boards were to have it. His constituents were opposed to it. The power to expropriate should be carefully defined, or otherwise it would only be a source of danger. He quite approved of the provision that at least two-thirds of the owners must ask for the appointment of a River Board, as that would be a sufficient protection for minorities. He also approved of the chanter dealing with irrigation loans, especially of loans for dams, but trusted that the Divisional Councils’ valuation of farms would not be accepted as a basis, as they were sometimes prejudiced. He trusted that in committee his remarks would be borne in mind.

said that both the lower and the upper owners of riparian rights wanted to have the water, and their interests were mutually opposed. In a country such as South Africa legislation for the conservation of water was of the greatest importance, and they were grateful to the Minister for producing so good a Bill. He would support the principle of the Bill. It laid down the rule that the landowner was the owner of the water which fell on or sprung out of his ground, and spring water belonged to the owner until it reached the public stream. He would like to know whether such an owner had the right to use the water so long as it was running in its course to the stream.

answered in the affirmative.

said he was satisfied with that assurance. Often rivers became so dry in the Transvaal that the holes in the bed also dried up, and then after rain had fallen the river came down, but the bed had become so dry that the water did not reach the lower parts. The Bill should lay down that every riparian owner had the right to make dams in the river, so that when the river came down the water could be conserved in such manner as would not injure other owners. The River Board should be empowered to direct that in the case of rivers along which many people live, the Sunday water—that is to say, the water which ran between Saturday midnight and Sunday midnight—should run free. In his constituency the speaker had seen the use of that. The higher owners used to turn the water off in the evening on to their own ground, and let it run all night, but when the regulation was made that Sunday water must be allowed to run, the lower owners could reckon on getting a good quantity of water. Clause 25 provided that subterranean water could not be sold, though the mines were exempted, and he thought that exemption was wrong. Like other landowners, the mines should pump out their water and allow it to flow in the ordinary way into the streams, and if that were done it was possible that such a state of things as they had at Klip River would not occur again. The Rand Water Board required a lot of water in order to provide for the requirements of the inhabitants of the Witwatersnand, but something ought also to be done for the people who lived in the Klip River valley, whose farms had become valueless owing to the pumping away of the subterranean water. Those people could not be helped by the Bill, but they should receive compensation.

said it appeared to him that every hon. member set up as an expert on the question of water rights. The hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, had shown himself to be alarmed for his bread and butter, though from his speech it appeared likely there would be enough work for him. The hon. member for Worcester had complained of the abolition of Roman-Dutch law, though he (the speaker) thought it was high time it was abolished. That system of law came from Holland, where the people had all they could do to keep the water away from the land, whilst here the trouble was to get it on the land. He thought the appointment of Water Boards was excellent. It was possible under the Bill for a poor man to get water from a river for the purposes of irrigation. He regretted that the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, had spoken so disparagingly of the Bill. He had a wide knowledge of the water laws, and presumably he was afraid there would now be fewer actions at law. He (the speaker) intended to support the Bill.

said that irrigation was a very complicated question, and it was very difficult to provide for everything. The chief thing to see to, in legislation of that sort, was that the water was not allowed to run away unused into the sea. He thought the division of what was called Sunday water should be left to the decision of the River Board. He was totally opposed to expropriation, which should never be resorted to until private negotiations had broken down. The hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, said he had repeatedly urged the Select Committee last year to define what “existing rights” were, and although it was a difficult thing to do, he (the speaker) agreed that it was most important. It was an excellent provision which gave an upper owner the right to use the water so long as it flowed over his ground, and also that a lower owner should be able to demand from an upper owner the right to use water which had flowed over the ground of the last-mentioned for thirty years, and had been used during that time by the lower owner. Subject to modifications in committee to make the Bill fit in with the peculiar conditions of South Africa, he would support the second reading.

approved of the principle of the Bill. In his district some 400 areas had been given out, each of twelve morgen. They were all irrigable plots, but if, according to clause 6, every owner had the right to lead away as much water as he wished, many of the lower owners would have to sell. The Bill protected vested interests, but clause 98 referred to expropriation in return for compensation, and he had had some experience of that sort of thing. They took the heart of a farm away, and paid insufficient compensation for it.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for committee stage on Wednesday, 13th March.