XX. GEORGE CHAMIER. 
principal streams very small, in comparison with the enorm- 
ous watershed they drain, but the flow is intermittent, 
depending largely on a most uncertain rainfall. The 
consequence is that inland navigation is precarious and 
much restricted, while the quantity of water available for 
irrigation is so limited as to need the utmost economy in 
its use. It follows that in this country as little water 
Should be allowed to flow to waste as possible, but this 
useful work may bring about such a diminution of the flow 
in the main rivers as to unfit them for navigation at 
certain periods. Thus a conflict of interests is imminent. 
Secondly, another important difference lies in the 
system of government control, exercised over all works of 
development and of a public character. In Australia the 
State has assumed certain rights over water-courses, 
which generally appertain to riparian owners, acting 
collectively, and it is invested with full powers over the 
streams that flow within its own territory. 
This law is beneficial in simplifying intricate claims 
relating to riparian rights, and it facilitates the carrying 
out of irrigation works of a national character, while it 
does not affect the main question of property in water. 
The rights of landowners to the streams are only, to some 
extent, vested in the State for the public advantage. But 
such powers do not extend over inter-state rivers, which 
are common property to all the States affected, and 
especially in what concerns river navigation. | 
Now, as regards this question of navigation, it is clear 
that it can only concern rivers which are, in a reasonable 
sense, navigable—available for regular traffic. Where a 
river is considered a highway for inland communication it 
must be adapted for such a purpose, if not at all times, at 
least within reasonable limits. In the proper sense of the 
word, none of these streams, with the exception of the 
Co a a ee 
