AFFOEESTATION OF CATCHMENT AREAS 83 



taken on appeal before the High Court. The Judges held 

 that " the arbitrator in his award had justly taken into 

 account the enhanced value of the land by reason of the 

 water that might be collected, diverted, and impounded upon 

 it, and also by reason of its natural and peculiar adaptation 

 for the construction of a reservoir." 



The following are examples of the remarkable awards 

 which have been based upon the decision in this case : 



The Swansea Corporation took, under an Act of Parlia- 

 ment, 152 acres for a reservoir out of a sheep farm of 

 5000 acres, which had been recently bought at auction 

 for £11,500. The award made for special adaptability 

 (£20 per acre), in respect of the 152 acres and for 'ease- 

 ments,' was £12,370, being more than the cost of the 

 whole farm of 5000 acres sold by auction as an ordinary 

 hill farm. 



Two acres of moorland were acquired by the Middle 

 Ward District Committee of Lanarkshire for the Shotts 

 Eeservoir. The land was valued by a competent valuator 

 at £326. An award was made of £465, but the Corporation 

 were obliged to pay in addition £28 as interest and £219 

 for the costs of arbitration, making £712 in all — in other 

 words, more than twice as much as the just value of the 

 land. 



The Glasgow Corporation, when raising the level of Loch 

 Arklet, were compelled to pay £19,115 in respect of 381 

 acres of rough heather moorland, of which they only acquired 

 freehold of 17 acres. In addition to this sum, the Corpora- 

 tion had to pay £4700 for legal expenses, £3500 for new 

 roads, etc., and £4700 for the right to store water, etc., or 

 £31,900 in all This seems monstrous, in view of the fact 

 that the 381 acres were practically of little or no value, 

 being part of 11,500 acres of hill pasture, the gross rent 

 of which was £700, worth then at 25 years' purchase only 

 £17,500. The real value of the 381 acres would seem to 

 have been less than £600, yet £31,900 was extorted. 



The Eoyal Commission (9) on Housing in Scotland, after 

 hearing evidence on this question, came to two clear and 



