The Irrigation Question. 375 



Act lo of 1893 introduces a modified scale of repayment of loans 

 granted under preceding Acts. 



Act 33 of 1896 provides for the construction of certain irriga- 

 tion works by Government, namely Kenhardt, Steynsburg and 

 Calitzdorp. 



Act 24 of 1897 makes further provision for advances to Irriga- 

 tion Boards, Municipalities or private persons, and for payment of 

 interest and repayment of capital advanced. 



Act 40 of 1899, commonly called the Water Act, 1899, deals 

 with the establishment and the constitution of Water Districts and 

 Water Courts, solely for the settlement of disputes with regard to 

 Water rights. These Courts have very full powers in reference to 

 rights of abutment in constructing weirs across watercourses, in 

 deciding what materials should be used in the construction of such 

 weirs or dams, in apportioning or distributing the available water 

 among the various proprietors interested and in fixing the liabilities 

 of all such proprietors with regard to expenditure incurred in the 

 construction and maintenance of Works, and finally, in dealing with 

 questions of compensation. The Act further empowers the Governor 

 to disregard section 66 of Act 8 of 1877 which insists upon all loans 

 being secured by first mortgage on the properties interested and to 

 accept a second mortgage provided the value of the security offered 

 be sufficient to cover both first and second mortgage. 



The last Act passed. No. 19 of 1902, provides for the construc- 

 tion of the Thebus Irrigation Works by Government. 



It Will be noted that in none of the above Acts has an attempt 

 been made to touch the thorny subjects of water-rights or to define 

 such in any way. Consequently in all cases where disputes about 

 water-rights cannot be settled amicably or by arbitration, recourse 

 must be had to the Supreme Courts of the Colony — a fact which has 

 a most deterrent effect upon investment of capital in Irrigation 

 enterprise. 



Although these Acts provide, to all appearaiice, ever)thing in 

 the way of assistance to enterprise, yet as a matter of fact they have 

 not proved so successful in operation as had been expected. This 

 is proved by the fact that but few persons or public Bodies have 

 availed themselves of the facilities offered, and the reasons are not 

 far to seek. Some of the conditions attached to the grantmg of 

 loans are extremely onerous in many cases and in some absolutely 

 prohibitive. 



Months are often spent in the examination of titles in connec- 

 tion with the mortgages, and in the end the loan is refused for some 

 reason or other. 



Again, the terms of various Acts with regard to loans are 

 contradictory or insufficiently clear and several of the Acts require 

 amendment. For instance it is laid down in Act 7 of 1880 that 

 Government may advance one-fifth of the total loan granted. Such 

 an advance is undoubtedly of great assistance to men who do not 

 command a large capital, but the Act leaves it uncertain whether 

 further advances can be made when the amount of the first advance 



