Order! I have now had an opportunity to consider the point of order taken by the hon. member for Sea Point on Friday after the Minister of Justice and of Police had made a statement dealing inter alia with the arrest of the editor of a certain newspaper.

I must first apologize for apparently not making it clear that I was reserving my ruling, but I must point out that Standing Order No. 144 states explicitly that after a point of order has been stated, “the presiding officer shall give his ruling or decision thereon, either forthwith or subsequently”.

I have taken the opportunity to review the whole question of the sub judice rule in the case of criminal matters. I find that in our House and the House of Commons, if there is the slightest danger of a trial being prejudiced, any reference in debate as well as motions and questions to matters awaiting or under adjudication in any court exercising criminal jurisdiction has been disallowed from the moment the law is set in motion by a charge being made or by an arrest which will result in a charge being made. The rule has accordingly been applied to prevent discussion of the circumstances of arrests, although such circumstances do not in fact relate to the charges actually being considered by the courts. The basis for this strict application of the rule has been that it is well-nigh impossible for the presiding officer to judge in advance what effect any such discussion might have on court hearings. As Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster said in evidence before a Select Committee of the House of Commons in discussing the risk of a damaging supplementary question: “… the Chair has got to hear it before he stops it—and then the poison is done”. (Q. 303, HC 156 of 1962-’63.) Thus in the House of Commons the rule has been applied to purely statistical questions relating to matters such as the number of police used to arrest a person currently awaiting trial and to a general question relating to “co-ordination between the Home Secretary and the Law Officers over the operation of the Official Secrets Act” (see p. 50, paras. 18 and 19 of HC 298 of 1971-72).

There have been no recent considered rulings on the sub judice rule in our Parliament, but the matter has been the subject of two reports by the Select Committee on Procedure of the House of Commons (HC 156 of 1962-’63 and 298 of 1971-72), which reports formed the basis of resolutions by the House of Commons on 23 July 1963 and 28 June 1972.

It is clear from a perusal of these reports and resolutions that the application of the sub judice rule in the House of Commons in the case of criminal matters corresponds in general to that of our House and they have been of material assistance to me in considering the matter before me.

In para. 7 of its report, the 1971-72 Committee makes the point that the essential difference between the sub judice rule as applied by Parliament and the courts is that “the former is imposed voluntarily by Parliament upon itself and exercised subject to the discretion of the Chair, with the object of forestalling prejudice of proceedings in court. The courts of law on the other hand protect themselves from prejudicial comment outside Parliament by the exercise post hoc of their powers to punish contempt”. It is this basic difference which in my opinion has resulted in Parliament appearing to be subject to more severe restrictions than the Press and the public in discussing such matters. Members are protected by privilege and are therefore free of the restraining influence of possible subsequent action by the courts, and that being so, it is as well that Parliament exercises great restraint in these matters.

However, as the 1963 and 1972 Resolutions of the House of Commons state specifically, the application of the sub judice rule is at all times subject to the discretion of Mr. Speaker.

Turning to the statement made by the Minister of Justice and of Police on Friday, I must say that the very strict prohibition contained in Standing Order No. 108, as applied in practice, causes me difficulty as far as ministerial statements are concerned. Firstly, many facts about a particular matter need not necessarily violate the sub judice rule, although ad hoc adjudication while a Minister is speaking is very difficult. Secondly, it can be in the public interest and even imperative, that a Minister discloses certain facts on his own responsibility, provided there are no serious and conspicuous violations of the sub judice rule.

I have been unable to find a considered ruling dealing with the extent to which the sub judice rule applies to ministerial statements. The Speaker of the House of Commons has ruled that Ministers must take their own responsibility for the statements they make and that it is not for the Speaker to examine such statements first, Mr. Speaker commenting further that if this were to lead to any abuse he suspected that the House would soon react (House of Commons Debates, 8 April 1974, col. 42). On the other hand, he stated shortly thereafter (col. 44) that if there had been anything improper in a statement the Prime Minister had just made, he would have ruled accordingly. However, it is interesting to note that while the sub judice rule is applied very strictly, as I have indicated, in the case of questions, two statements on the attempt to kidnap Princess Anne and the arrest of a certain named person were made and supplementary questions and statements allowed on 20 and 21 March 1974 with the question of the sub judice rule apparently not arising.

I must accordingly infer that the Speaker of the Commons exercised his discretion in the case of these statements, and I must now apply my mind to the extent to which I should follow a similar course. It must be borne in mind that ministerial statements are made with due regard to all the implications of such statements and that when a Minister is of the considered opinion that certain information should in the public interest be made available to Parliament, Mr. Speaker will not lightly intervene. Statements moreover do not afford an opportunity for debate and members may only make short statements or ask questions with the consent of the presiding officer.

As Ministers are of course fully aware of the sub judice rule, the Minister of Justice in fact referring specifically to the rule in his statement on Friday, and must take full responsibility themselves for statements, I consider that I should only intervene in cases where Ministers make comments in such statements which will to my mind create a real and substantial danger of prejudice to any court proceedings. I must emphasize, however, that any relaxation of the sub judice rule which this ruling may involve, can only apply to ministerial statements and not to debate, motions or questions, and that if members feel that the matter requires further consideration now or at any stage in the future, I shall be prepared to consider submitting it to the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders for such further consideration.

I should like to add that, if Ministers are in doubt whether statements they intend making will conflict with the sub judice rule, I shall be prepared to assist them by considering such statements before they are delivered, without in any way derogating from the principle of ministerial responsibility for such statements.

As I do not feel that the statement made by the Minister of Justice on Friday can be regarded as falling within the ambit of the rule as I have now stated it, no further action on my part is called for.

In conclusion I should like to emphasize that, as the 1971-72 Committee of the House of Commons pointed out, a Speaker in the exercise of his discretion in respect of the sub judice rule is always faced with a dilemma, namely that the House has an inherent right to inquire into and debate matters of public importance which are within the responsibility of Ministers while at the same time it would not wish by question or debate to prejudice proceedings before the courts (see paras. 7 and 25 of the Committee’s Report). In exercising my discretion in this particular instance I have attempted to resolve this dilemma in the case of ministerial statements by making it possible for the House to be given such information as the responsible Minister considers he should furnish in the public interest, while preventing any further debate. I can only hope that the House whose servant I am, will approve of the attitude I have adopted.

Mr. Speaker, arising out of your ruling, it would appear that in the answer given by him to a question on Friday, 27 September, the hon. the Minister, in touching on a matter which could become relevant in a court case, gave this House certain information which, according to statements in the Press, he subsequently said outside of this House was not factually accurate. In this connection I refer to tile quotation which he read out from the Daily News. In these circumstances, Sir, I wonder if it would not be appropriate for the hon. the Minister to put this matter right in the House itself.

I have allowed this one question by the hon. member for Sea Point, and I shall allow a concise and relevant answer by the hon. the Minister, but I shall not allow any further questions or debate on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, for one irrational, glorious moment I thought that the hon. member for Sea Point was going to compliment me on the way in which the Police handled what was potentially a very dangerous situation at Currie’s Fountain in Durban on Wednesday, but apparently he only wanted to know why I had said in the House—and I did say so and I regret that I said it—when I was actually reading from The Argus, a Cape Town-based newspaper, that I was quoting from The Daily News. Sir, I rectified the matter in the weekend Press by making the following statement to a pressman; I quote what I told one of the newspaper correspondents—

You will allow me, Sir, just to explain, so as to get our facts straight, that I banned the meeting at Curries Fountain on Monday, the 23rd; I made it known over the radio and in the Government Gazette in terms of section 2(3), and I made it known in the manner laid down in terms of section 2(2). Sir, that was on the Monday. To get the record straight, I now quote from the “City Late” edition of the Daily News, a Durban-based newspaper of Tuesday, the 24th—

Sir, the following words which appear in this report are important in my opinion—

This was after I had given notice over the radio of the banning of the meeting—

Sir, this goes on to say—and I will quote only the relevant parts, with your consent—

Sir, that was the report on the Tuesday. I now come to the report which appeared in the “City Late” edition of The Daily News on Wednesday, the 25th—

This is when it was banned—

Then I quote what in my view is a further relevant portion—

Then I leave out what in my view is irrelevant and again quote what I regard as relevant—

In other words, Sir, this newspaper, in these two news items, gave the time and the place and kept on saying that the meeting was to be held “today”, and it was a result of that that I contended that The Argus report was substantially the same as the news items in The Daily News. I quote again from The Argus—

The only words which do not appear in The Daily News are the words “Currie’s Fountain”; otherwise it is quite clear that the meeting would take place “today as scheduled”, and in the previous day’s issue of the newspaper they had actually mentioned the time of the meeting and Currie’s Fountain near Durban as the place of the meeting. As a result of that, Mr. Speaker, I was quite convinced that the news item that I was reading out to the House was substantially the same as the news items, which appeared in The Daily News and which I have already read out to the House. In the circumstances, Sir, I assume that my hon. friend will accept my statement that the news item in the one newspaper is substantially the same as in the other, and for the mere fact, Mr. Speaker, that I quoted directly from The Argus, instead of doing what I have done here this afternoon, I beg your pardon.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the privilege of the half-hour. In rising to speak here, I feel that taking over the cloak of Mr. Douglas Mitchell and speaking on water affairs on behalf of this side of the House could make one feel like a dwarf wearing a giant’s shoes. I want to pay tribute to Mr. Mitchell for his labours on behalf of our side of the House in regard to Water Affairs over the years. He was a member who cast a very long shadow in South Africa and I want to dwell for a moment on one of his characteristics, and that is the tendency he had to work everything out carefully, to state principles and then to base everything on those principles, to test everything he did against those principles.

Sir, we have come here as a new Parliament and we shall have to reach agreement on water affairs, for we have always considered water to be too important a matter to involve in politics. Our point of view is that water is of the greatest importance in this country and that we are not going to waste our time and the time of this House by petty political point-scoring on water affairs. I just want to say that if the Minister were to make a mistake here and there or to do something wrong, I cannot guarantee that we would not be tempted, but we shall wait and see how the Minister conducts himself in that regard. In the good old days of Mr. Jim Fouché, Mr. Mitchell stated five principles on behalf of our side in this House, and since this is now a new Parliament I should like to re-state the five principles of the United Party as far as water is concerned, for we are going to conduct the debate around those five principles.

†The principles of the United Party as far as water is concerned are fivefold. These principles were laid down many years ago and I think that as time has gone by they have stood the test and we would like to relate our whole debate to the principles that we set out here. The first is that existing communities, both urban and rural, should have their water supply secured for them. I shall talk briefly on the question of the Umgeni River in illustration of that particular point. The second principle is that the full development of South Africa’s own water resources should be implemented before we engage in foreign adventures. This can only be justified on the grounds of special diplomatic or good-neighbour relations, and when one thinks of the Caborra Bassa and the Kunene schemes we have a good illustration of that particular point. The third principle is that there should be a grid system utilizing the water from snowfalls in the highberg areas. This should be developed to provide for the movement of water from surplus areas to areas of short supply. Here one thinks immediately of the Berg River and the Theewaterkloof scheme where water is brought into this catchment from outside in times of high supply, by means of a tunnel, and again reversed out of that catchment in times of low supply. That is one illustration. I see in that part of the Secretary’s report which deals with South-West Africa, that this is also contemplated for that territory, and that water should be supplied on a grid basis. The fourth is the need for apportionment to be undertaken by the department after the fullest survey of supplies from all sources. Sir, this is probably the highest point of planning we can reach in this country and I will deal briefly with that again later on. The last principle which we laid down was research on a large scale in regard to purification, the re-use and desalination of water and the investigation of underground resources. There again I shall have something to say arising partly out of the report of the Water Research Commission and partly out of the need that I can see for conserving water and building up storage areas.

I should like to proceed now to considering the question of the Umgeni River catchment in Natal. We have heard a great deal in Natal about water. We are always told that Natal is the province which has more water than any of the other provinces. We are told that we have the industrial future of the country because we have enough water to spare. People talk about the Tugela River as though this is the big future of Natal without realizing that the Umgeni River today already supports about half the total population of Natal. From the water in the Umgeni catchment four-fifths of the total industrial production of Natal is being produced. This is an area which has undergone considerable investigation, considerable research and considerable thought from the point of view of all the authorities, particularly of the Town and Regional Planning Commission in Natal, which has gone so far as to say that the Durban and the Pinetown areas have now reached a maximum limit of development in so far as space is concerned. They have put, what they call, an urban fence round about the Durban/Pinetown area and active steps are being taken to divert industrial development away from those areas to other areas like Pietermaritzburg and Ladysmith. This is not being done for the reason that there is not enough water, because one of the specific points which are made in the report, in the regional guide-plan, is that there is enough water in that catchment to support a population of 20 million people. It is being done merely because the sprawl of urban areas around Durban and Pietermaritzburg is getting totally uneconomic.

I think it is important to realize that in the Umgeni River there is potentially enough water for 20 million people. The department has already embarked upon providing a dam at Mitmar and are now building the Albert Falls dam. There is one more site, the Inanda site, which will eventually from part of KwaZulu. There is the further proposal which has been made by Dr. James that there should be a site developed for a dam at Phoenix, which is practically in Durban. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this proposal has come to his attention because right now there is a considerable controversy going on about the Phoenix site, e.g. whether it should be used either for housing or for industry. This site has a tremendous potential for water storage. It falls within a couple of miles of the coast at Durban. I would welcome any information the hon. the Minister can give us about the site.

I think that the Umgeni is probably one of the rivers of South Africa that is free? from silt. The dams which have been built there, therefore, can give us an assured yield for many years without being affected by the silting up of storage capacity. I do think that this deserves to being watched very closely. I think that the development of that area has to be intensified. The urban fence has been put there so that people will develop back into the area of Durban, which will bring about a much heavier population and much greater economics of transport, and this kind of thing. I bring this matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister for several reasons.

On the question of eutrophication, the enrichment of water, it is mentioned in the department’s report that the discharge of sewage into water storage can, by reason of phosphate and nitrogen which are not absorbed in the treatment process, enrich water to such an extent that you get these blooms of algae to the point where fish life can die and the water can become almost unusable without very expensive treatment. With the proposed establishment of a large Bantu township at Mpophumeni near Howick and the treatment of sewage from that area and from the entire Howick area, the question has arisen whether it is going to be allowed to be discharged into the catchment of the Umgeni where it will flow into the Albert Falls dam, or whether there is going to be any kind of support from the hon. the Minister and his department—perhaps even financial support —for the movement of all of that sewage over the catchment and out of the catchment of the Umgeni, because there is a proposal that this should be taken down to Pietermaritzburg by pipeline and be treated there. I think that the hon. the Minister, if he is thinking seriously of the Umgeni catchment area, will realize that this is something which cannot simply be ignored. It can be of the most tremendous importance to this river which, as I say, is one of the most important in the whole of Natal.

There is one other point I want to raise in regard to this. The hon. the Minister’s department, some years ago, built a pipeline from the Midmar Dam to Ferncliff. The pipeline then continued all the way down to Umlaas Road, Camperdown and Hammarsdale. I see that there is an item in the Secretary’s report to the effect that an investigation of an alternate route as well as repairs to the pipeline are taking place. My information is that this pipeline is in an absolutely deplorable state, that it is being eaten away, that it is leaking like a sieve, and that all the expense the department has put into clearing that pipeline, particularly the area that goes underneath the hill at Hilton, has simply been wasted because the pipe will not hold the water that was to be passed through the pipe to the purification works at Ferncliff. I believe that the hon. the Minister can tell us something about this. My information is that the concrete itself is actually being eaten away, that it is going to require extensive reconcreting of the rock portion of that tunnel which takes the water down to the Ferncliff treatment plant. I would welcome anything the Minister could tell me about this. I would like to know what went wrong, whether it was the sand that was used, the quality of the concrete, or sheer shoddy workmanship on the part of the contractor who did the job, that has led to this threat to the supply of water to the whole Pietermaritzburg area and all the way down to Camperdown and Hammarsdale. One of our first principles is that an existing community should have its supply secured for it. In other words, where one has gone to tremendous lengths and spent a tremendous amount of money to build dams, one should secure these by ensuring that sewage is not allowed to pollute the supplies of water and, secondly, that where works are undertaken by the department, they should not have to be redone within a matter of about six or eight years. I think it was about six years ago that the pipeline and tunnel were put through from Midmar to Ferncliff.

The second question I wish to raise, and there will be several, is that of the Orange River and the immense quantities of water that are available, stored up in the scheme as it is now and as it will be when it is completed. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us here, when he replies to the debate today or tomorrow, what purpose this water is going to serve. There is an immense amount of water available. There is nothing that one can see immediately adjacent to the Orange River, either in the nature of industrial development or any other development. We know that water will be supplied to Port Elizabeth and we know that water will go to the Sundays River, but if there is going to be efficient use of this water, one can only predict that industrialization will have to take place close to the Orange River scheme. Industrialization implies labour, and labour implies Black labour in South Africa. It implies a major relocation of population and raises all kinds of problems.

I should like to know what exactly the hon. the Minister and the department see as being the future uses of the water. Will it be used for irrigation? We already know that plans that were projected at the time when the scheme was first mooted, have been abandoned. We know that there are vast problems, when it comes to water from the Orange River, as far as brack soil is concerned. We wonder whether it is the intention of the hon. the Minister to transfer water out of the catchment and if so, where and at what cost? I believe that this illustrates a point that I have been trying to make here for some years. I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister and to the hon. member for Piketberg, who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters. That Select Committee should be given the task of investigating this whole Orange River project in depth. We should be able to call for evidence and to project plans and population studies, etc., to make a Committee of this House a functioning part of the process of planning and of finding an answer to this problem which I believe is not answered either in the report we have had or in the White Papers we have had.

I believe that this is something which involves such large expenditure and which will have such large implications that a Committee of this House could well be entrusted with the task of looking into the matter and perhaps coming up with solutions. One thinks of the remarkable efforts that are made by the department: one thinks of the floods last year and the balancing act which was carried out by the department in using the gates of the dam and allowing water to flow over at one stage at a time when the dam was already full and there was actually more water coming into the dam than was going out. This attempt to control the flooding of the coffer dam and works further down the river. I think, was a most remarkable achievement. From that point of view, the department has learnt a great deal, as far as flood control is concerned, from the experience of last year.

I would also like to raise the question of the Josini Dam. Here again we have a problem. The Secretary’s report mentions that investigations and drilling works are still going on to secure the left flank of the dam. I think the Minister should make a statement in this House, telling us precisely what is happening at Josini. There is, for example, the question of the use of thie water. I would like to know just what research is going on. We have heard that research has been going on. I have heard officials of the Departments of Water Affairs and Agriculture lecture public meetings and speak to farmers’ associations, etc.; but I have not yet heard of anything that is going to solve the problem of the land below the Josini Dam where brack soil is going to pose a tremendous problem as soon as water is applied. We have made an investment there of something like R35 million, if my figures are correct.

One is inclined to ask what is going to happen to all that water. Is there going to be fish farming on a large scale below the dam? What precisely is intended by the department at Josini? I would like to know how far agricultural research has progressed. I do not suppose that I can ask this hon. Minister, but I shall certainly ask the Minister and the Department of Agriculture. Here we have a vast national asset with millions and millions of gallons of usable water which simply cannot be put to any kind of profitable use at all which we can see. We are told that there is a certain amount of land below the dam that can be irrigated, but it is not enough to absorb the water stored in the dam. We hear also that it is not possible to flood the dam to full capacity, because that would create an international incident with people on our borders. To my mind, this again might well be something into which the hon. member for Piketberg and his committee might look, in order to try to find out some kind of a plan which will enable this dam to be utilized to the maximum advantage for South Africa.

Then I come to the Tugela River, again one of the assets in Natal we have been told about which is going to provide enormous possibilities for the future. We are told that there will be 20 million or more people living in the Tugela Basin and that there is still enough water at the mouth of the Tugela River for a city the size of London.

East London.

I have never heard of it. The hon. member for Klip River and myself later on in this session are going to raise the matter of the planning of the Tugela Basin with the Minister of Planning. I do not want to cross over that particular line at this moment, but White Papers are continually appearing providing for enormous sums of money to be spent, and, I believe, to be spent very beneficially. I think the Tugela/ Vaal scheme is one of the major achievements of the Department of Water Affairs. I want to congratulate the department on the conception, the planning and the carrying out of that scheme, but there are complications that have arisen. This is a striking illustration of the fact that you can embark upon a scheme and earmark millions of rand for the building of dams and other works, and then, when you take a more detailed survey of what you have, you find that you can, in fact, save money and create a totally different scheme, or certainly a scheme with a different emphasis. That is precisely what has happened here with the Tugela/Vaal scheme.

In order to supplement the water in the Vaal River, which we in Natal believe has to be done, the Spioenkop Dam was built at a cost of R15 million. The proposal was that water should be pumped from the Spioenkop Dam back to the foot of the berg and over the berg to the Free State. However, further investigations made by the department have revealed that by building the dam higher up in the river and by creating a series of weirs it is possible to eliminate the Spioenkop scheme altogether whereas this was the sole purpose of the Spioenkop Dam at the beginning. One of the main reasons—perhaps not the sole reason—for building the Spioenkop Dam was that the water from this dam would be pumped to the foot of the berg and from there to the Vaal River. By planning an alternative scheme the department today is able to save money by using the Spioenkop Dam for a catchment for other purposes and by the implementation of this remarkable scheme where the department will work together with Escom in order to generate power from pumped storage. I think this is a tremendous scheme and is of very, very great benefit to the people in that area. They are using the water to the maximum benefit and I think that the initiative of the department to develop this scheme is something to be commended. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, this is the sort of money we do not mind voting at all. We are very happy to vote money for the department to embark upon a scheme like that. However, that is only the first step of the hydro-electric development of the Tugela river. The hon. the Minister knows this because a member of his own department produced a plan postulating a series of seven or eight dams all the way down to the mouth of the Tugela River. I think this is the first step towards getting a foot in the door, as it were, and I believe that the Tugela River will be developed as much for its hydroelectrical potential as for its industrial potential.

There are, however, certain other problems which arise as far as the Tugela River is concerned. However, I do not think that these problems concern this particular Minister, and I shall raise them at another stage. One of the problems we have in the Tugela is that of silting. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the new Woodstock Dam which it is proposed to build will be able to control to some extent the silting of the Spioenkop Dam. I ask that because it is a very real problem indeed as far as the Spioenkop Dam is concerned. I hope that something is going to be done in this regard and also that representations will be made to other departments to see that the water in that dam is protected against siltation. In terms of the further proposal the water in the whole of the Tugela basin catchment could be channelled into the Spioenkop Dam. Prof. Matthews proposed this plan some years ago. According to this plan every river from the Mooi River in the south to the Buffalo River in the north can be diverted through tunnels and canals to generate power on the way to the Spioenkop Dam. The total flow of those rivers, or as much as is necessary, can then be made available to industry at the site of the Spioenkop Dam. I have already heard people in my constituency saying that their farms are going to be bought for the purpose of building dams. Half the farming population in the area was upset about the people who were going around doing surveys, but through the Secretary of the department I was able to reassure them that these people were only doing investigation work. When you come to the question of apportionment an immense amount of water, it is going to be stored in the Tugela valley which can be stored in the Spioenkop Dam. As I have said, it is possible to catch the flow from the Mooi River and all the rivers north of the Mooi River to the Tugela itself and all the rivers which are lying south of the Tugela up to the Buffalo River. I think the hon. the Minister should tell us something of what he has in mind for the day when there is going to be an independent State between that area of the Tugela River and the sea, because apportionment means that you are planning, looking at the future and saying to various sectors of the population and industrial activities that there is a certain amount of water available for them. There is going to be an independent State in that area and some consideration has to be given to the requirements of that particular State. I think the hon. the Minister should take that into consideration in so far as any overall planning in that Tugela valley is concerned.

There is another point that arises out of this. A Dr. James who was with the Department of Hydrology at the University of Natal in Durban some years ago and who today is in Canada, produced a paper which deals with the storage of water on the Zululand coastal plain. One of the sites is at Hazelmere where the department is now undertaking a scheme. There is a proposal contained in this document for collecting water from various of the catchment areas in Natal. This is the second time that this idea has come up that water can be caught in those various catchment areas and transferred from population centre to population centre down the coast through a thin-walled pipeline that runs under the sea. One of the basic deductions made in this document is that it is far cheaper to transport water in that way than it is to use the expensive process of desalination which may be based on nuclear power. I think that this is the sort of thinking that this country will have to look at. The Hon. the Minister himself has said that before the turn of the century every drop of water in South Africa is going to be committed. Plans of this nature may be revolutionary, they may sound visionary and not of this earth, but one must seize at chances such as this where possible. I think that such plans as these deserve investigation and I would like to know whether the hon. the Minister has any ideas on this subject and whether he has seen this plan. One of his own officials mooted this point some years ago. As I say, this is the second time that the plan has been raised whereby even rivers south of Durban can be tied into a grid of fresh water that will run in a pipe along the sea-floor and be available for tapping off to areas such as Durban which before or by 1985 will require supplementation of its water reserves from outside of the Umgeni catchment area. I think the hon. the Minister could well have a look at schemes of this nature. I would be interested to know whether he in fact has already done so.

This brings me briefly to a fifth point in connection with the question of research. Some years ago I raised with the hon. the Minister in this House the question of toilets that do not require water. When you think of the immense amount of money that is invested by the department and by cities in sewers, pipes, and so on and when you think that water, one of our most precious assets, is being used merely as a vehicle to transport human waste from one place to another, one really wonders how long we can go on in this country disregarding any other approach to this problem. The water is merely being used; it is not being consumed in any fashion at all. It can only be reclaimed at tremendous cost and re-used in other processes. I came across something very interesting the other day, something which more or less bore out what I was thinking about. Of course it had to come from one of the Rockefellers. The daughter of the New York banker. David Rockefeller, is president of Clibus Multrum USA which started production of a device which she hopes will replace that Victorian invention, the flush toilet. I commend this idea to the hon. the Minister. It requires no water, no chemicals and no energy to operate. In an article I have, it is claimed—

I honestly believe that something has got to be done. We have to find a way to prevent the wasteful use of water by simply allowing it to be used as a conveyor when there are alternative processes which lend themselves to being adapted to our particular needs here in South Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has heard of this process, whether he has had a chance of looking at it, and wether he will perhaps refer the matter to his Water Research Commission. I do not want to do him out of his job of having to provide water for the cities of South Africa but there is certainly the question of preserving for other uses, for industrial and other uses, the water that we have here in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River touched on various points which are stimulating and interesting. In the course of my speech I shall refer to some of them. Unfortunately I have far less time at my disposal than he had, and I also want to raise a few points of my own.

If one looks at the Budget figures, it strikes one that the amount appearing on this year’s Budget for the Department of Water Affairs is more or less the same as the amount which was voted for this purpose last year—on Loan Account, R115 795 000 as against R114 600 000 for the 1973-74 financial year. When I look at that. I do feel some sympathy for the hon. the Minister and his department since the annual reports and the information at our disposal indicate that the department has a very large works programme at hand across the length and breadth of our country. The hon. member for Mooi River dwelt on a few of the major projects which are at hand in Natal, projects which are being worked on. Some of them are nearing completion while others are still in their developmental stages. Over the length and breadth of our country there are very urgent schemes at hand. If one bears in mind, in addition to that, that the construction costs, too, in connection with these major water schemes in which the department has been engaged during the past few years have risen phenomenally, one realizes that the Department of Water Affairs has to contend with a very real problem, i.e. to proceed with these major development schemes and even to undertake new ones with the same funds at its disposal. I just want to express the hope that in the years ahead the hon. the Minister will succeed, for example in the appropriation which he may possibly negotiate before the end of this year, in having more money made available to this department. We have the fullest sympathy with him and the Government because we know that the demands made on the Treasury from all sides are very heavy and that all departments are having to contend with increases in costs. The Department of Water Affairs, however, has to make provision for the creation of an infrastructure to carry the development which we so urgently need for the future. Therefore. I want to say here that we appreciate that the Department of Water Affairs and the hon. the Minister do succeed in proceeding with their heavy and extensive programme. We also want to express the hope that in the coming year he will succeed in having more money made available for these very essential works they are engaged in.

The hon. member for Mooi River referred to the splendid feat accomplished in the Orange River in respect of flood control with the aid of the Hendrik Verwoerd dam during the past year of floods. We know that ultimately even the Verwoerd dam was not able to control the mass of water, but I think that the control that was in fact exercised was hampered to a certain extent by the fact that the P. K. le Roux Dam was still under construction. We are convinced that when that project has been completed the ability of the department to exercise much more efficient flood control by means of the Hendrik Verwoerd dam and the P. K. le Roux Dam will most decidedly be improved.

We are also very grateful for the progress being made in the development of the Boland water project. We have said on numerous previous occasions that the Boland does not possess the natural and mineral riches which other parts of our country possess, and that we have a backlog to make up here in the Boland; that we should try to develop our land, and we are very dependent for that on the development of the Boland water plan that was announced. We are very grateful that the department is already engaged in major developments at a few points on the Riviersonderend and the Breede River, which are important keyworks in the development in the Boland water plan, but I should like to refer to a facet of this water plan which actually, if I read the planning correctly, is included in a later phase, the third phase, and that is the development of the water of the Olifants River and the Doom River in the constituency I serve. At that time the Minister announced in this regard that he was not going to proceed with the proposed Aspoort scheme. I am aware that there are certain bodies and interested persons that are still making representations and are endeavouring to ensure that something will in fact be done about the Aspoort scheme eventually, even if it were to be a smaller scheme. Sir, I am not acting as the champion of these people or as their representative. I am concerned in the matter in the sense that I am convinced of the fact that the water of the Doom River will indeed have to be utilized at some stage or other and for that reason, if the hon. the Minister still holds the opinion that the development of the Aspoort scheme should not be proceeded with, I want to submit to him and his department for their consideration the idea that planning has to take place with a view to utilizing the water of the Olifants River and the Doom River in the lower Olifants River area in order to be able to develop that irrigation area to a larger extent. Surveys have already been made and investigations have been undertaken with a view to constructing a dam on the upper reaches of the river at Keerom above Citrusdal. The possibility of constructing a dam on the Doom River closer to Klawer. i.e. closer to the confluence of the Doom River and the Olifants River, has been investigated. I personally think that this is a source of water which has enormous potential. It may be used in a part of our country which is a semi-desert region, where the climatic conditions are actually very favourable under normal conditions: this area is free of frost and hail and in addition to that it is situated relatively close to the Cape market. Sir, if one consider the additional factors which have come into play during the past year or so as regards the supply of fresh vegetables to the Cape market, i.e. the disappearance of agricultural land here in the Cape Peninsula and going hand in hand with that, the rapid population growth in the Cape Peninsula as well as the increase in rail rates, which is a fundamental factor in the process of the economic marketing of fruit and vegetables at present, then I want to mention for the serious consideration of the hon. the Minister that the development of the Olifants River and the Doom River should not be delayed for an unnecessarily lone time since this is an area which lends itself not only to increased development of the agricultural facet existing there today, but also to the more efficient supply of the necessary vegetables to the Cape market. If we consider the prices which have been paid for vegetables here at the Cape market during the past years, we realize that in view of those prices and in view of the population growth, this has really become a very serious and very urgent matter That is why I want to ask the hon. Minister that, as soon as it is at all possible, when one or a few of the projects in which they are at present engaged in the Boland water plan have been completed, serious attention be given to the possibility of commencing the construction of a dam on the upper reaches of the Olifants River at Keerom or a dam on the Doom River. I want to point out that the water at Keerom could even be made available at a relatively low cost for urban and industrial use, since the possibility of a tunnel through the Olifants River mountains, if additional water is provided lower down in the river, is quite within the scope of our engineering know-how. I want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will give very serious and urgent attention to this matter.

Mr. Chairman, it makes one a little nervous when one sees the two hon. members opposite looking so delighted. Then one never knows when one’s own head is going to roll too. But when I consider the change that has taken place in this House in regard to the handling of the Water Affairs Vote, it is amazing. In the years following my arrival here, every member, one after another, rose here and pleaded for a small dam virtually on his front doorstep at least. Nowadays we and the United Party can rise here in love and peace and ask the Minister what he actually intends doing with all the water he has already accumulated. I say this is an exceptional change. I have here in my hand an attractive R2 note with a full Verwoerd dam depicted on the reverse side. This note is so attractive that I wish I had many of them. In fact, I am considering laying this fine picture of my constituency on the Table and resuming my seat. In any event, I want to convey my thanks to the hon. the Minister for the outstanding assistance rendered by him to my constituency as well as the constituencies of my colleagues situated on the lower reaches of the Orange River during the recent losses the people suffered as a result of the major floods in that area. It was my privilege to accompany the hon. the Minister on a visit to the entire area of the Orange River and the Fish River. We can convey only our heartiest thanks to the Minister for what has already been accomplished in my constituency as well as in other constituencies, by means of the amount of R1,6 million which was voted for additional assistance for the reparation of the irrigation channels and irrigation lands. It was impressive to drive along the course of the river and to realize, as the hon. member for Mooi River has already said, what an exceptional degree of success the Department of Water Affairs had already achieved at that stage by means of the flood control they were able to exercise at the Verwoerd Dam; how a flood went past Upington which was only about a third of the volume of water which flowed into the upper reaches of the Orange River—or rather, the other way round; while the flood was at its peak at Upington, approximately one-third of the water which flowed into the dam at Bethulie higher up, flowed over the wall of the Verwoerd Dam. This is an exceptional achievement. For this we can but give the Minister and his department our very special thanks.

In the limited time at my disposal I should like to say a few words about the research being done by the Department of Water Affairs, and by the Water Research Commission in particular. This Commission originated in the report drawn up by the commission of inquiry into water sources and their utilization, which was appointed by the present State President. This report was tabled in 1970, and in 1971 the Minister, in reacting to the report, introduced the Water Research Act here. As a result, the opportunity was created to collect sufficient funds to carry out water research in this country. An exceptional team of people, under the chairmanship of the by now well-known Secretary for Water Affairs, Mr. J. P. Kriel, was then appointed to this Water Research Commission. Another member of the commission is that outstanding scientist, Dr. Gerrie Stander, a man who has already made his mark in this regard. Permit me to say, Sir, that I am proud of the fact that Dr. Stander was born and bred in my constituency, close to the Verwoerd Dam. This team of people made an immediate start and drew up a whole programme of how the research was to be conducted. The plans of the commission cover a very wide spectrum, and they are investigating the various aspects in this regard one after another. All aspects are being investigated, from basic research to applied research, technological developments, and related activities. That reminds me of the observation the present State President once made. It was when he was still sitting in the bench where the hon. the Minister is sitting now. He was speaking about research. As he related the anecdote, he came to a researcher, a fellow who was engaged in intensive research, and asked him, “What are you doing, my frined?” The researcher replied, “I am seeking the truth”. The then Minister’s reply was, “Yes, but what do you intend doing with the truth?” Sir, these people are seeking the truth and they know exactly what they intend doing with the truth. They have identified those bottlenecks in our national water situation, and they are eliminating those bottlenecks and conducting their research to the best of their ability.

In the short time at my disposal I can only touch on this research which has to be done. There are four aspects of the research, apart from water research and research in connection with the generation of power, which is already undertaken by the Department of Water Affairs itself. At this stage, the commission is engaged, in particular, in reclaiming sewage water or other polluted water. In other words, they are paying special attention to the prevention of pollution and the reclamation of water. This is the first aspect of their activities. A second aspect they are engaged in is the desalination of brackish and saline water. A further aspect the commission is seriously engaged in and in which they are achieving an acceptional degree of success—an aspect in respect of which we want to express the hope that they will attain an even larger degree of success—is the reclamation and storage of water in sand-beds, in other words, in reservoirs other than ordinary dams, such as in the Cape Flats area for instance. A further aspect in which they are intensively engaged is the task assigned to the University of the Orange Free State by the hon. the Minister, i.e. the investigation of underground water resources. We are grateful that the hon. the Minister, through the agency of this commission, in conjunction with the CSIR, has already allocated an amount of R1.2 million to the university so that they may proceed with this research on an intensive basis. We think that this underground water investigation is of particular importance to large parts of the rural areas and to large parts of those areas which are situated around our towns, particularly those areas which will have to supply South Africa with food in future. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Fauresmith made a rather interesting speech on research here this afternoon. We also realize that research relating to water plays a very important part in our national economy. I also believe that the discussion of the Water Affairs Vote is probably one of the most important discussions we can have in the Parliament of South Africa during any session.

†The majority of our people may perhaps not know that South Africa, unlike other European countries, has many problems relating to water. We see that at present South Africa is using approximately 3 800 000 morgen feet of water per annum. This is the minimum amount we are using. By the year 2000, at the turn of the century, we will be using approximately 11 million morgen feet of water. Our present storage capacity will not cope with the amount of water which will be required by the turn of the century. As I have said, we shall require a tremendous amount of water by the turn of the century. We have at present 343 different sized dams built by the State and private enterprise. The capacity of those dams is a mere 7 500 000 morgen feet of water. So although people may criticize the amount we are spending on water, what we have at present will not suffice and unless we can provide more storage for our water, we shall not be able to provide water for our needs by the turn of the century. When one looks at South Africa’s rivers, one finds that if all these were diverted to the Kariba Dam, it would take them two and a half years to fill Kariba at their present rate of flow. I know that the Department of Water Affairs in particular is striving for the efficient utilization of our water—in other words, to maintain a balance between supply and demand. We know that the department is very conscious of this balance, and for this reason research has to be done into water. I have already referred to the speech of the hon. member for Fauresmith about research. We have to do a great deal of research into evaporation, water pollution, silt content and particularly sediment loads in our rivers. These are very serious problems and, as I have said, it requires a great deal of research to overcome most of these problems.

I want to deal with one problem which is causing concern in some quarters, particularly in the Eastern Cape. People there are very concerned about it. I want to refer to the Bill which we passed in this House in 1969, i.e. the Orange River Development Project Bill. We spent many days in framing this Bill in Select Committee and we took evidence from people. We even went so far as to plan ahead the completion of the Orange/Fish River tunnel, which we know starts at Overston, close to a little village called Venterstad, virtually on the banks of the Orange River. The water will run through a tunnel which will be one of the longest, if not the longest, in the world, to a place called Theebus, south of the Suurberg. This tunnel is nearing completion today. We who have been there have seen this magnificent feat of engineering that has been achieved as the result of careful planning and the lining of the tunnel with concrete. However, when that water flows out of the tunnel and is diverted into the Theebus River, we will encounter the problem of silt further down that river. This river, which flows into the Grass Ridge storage dam, a very old dam, has taken much silt down with it over the years. Today, Grass Ridge Dam has a 50% silt deposit. As I see it, if there were no silt, the dam could hold at least 40% more water. However, with the completion of the tunnel, when the water is diverted into the Theebus River, we will see a stream of water of between 200 and 300 cusecs flowing down that river, which will be approximately one metre deep. It will be a permanent stream. We who know that river, or “spruit”, very well, know that the soil on the banks of that river is very porous indeed. In other words, it is like sugar. The banks will fall in continuously when there is a permanent stream, let alone when flood waters come down from time to time.

When the Bill was framed in 1969, we suggested that, to save State expense, the silt should be stopped by biological means; in other words, by planting reeds and other plants along the banks of the river. To my knowledge, virtually nothing has been done in this regard. It was suggested that we should build canals from the outlet of the tunnel to Grass Ridge Lake and further down the Fish River and the Sundays River. However, this will certainly not be practical along the banks of the Theebus River. I do not believe a concrete canal would ever work there, because of the porous nature of the soil. One farmer, in particular, has offered his property as a nursery to supply reed roots, or “vleitjiesriet”. If we could have started earlier on, right from 1969 or 1970, where virtually nothing has as yet been done, in those four years we could already have lined the banks of that particular river with reeds, so that no erosion will take place when the water is diverted into the Theebus Spruit. If the banks had been biologically protected, absorption would have been produced to a minimum and evaporation would have been far less than it will be once the water is diverted into the river. This has been proved time and again. I must emphasize the urgency of this matter. It is very urgent indeed that we go into this matter. It has been proved that by biological means we can stop this silt which will flow from that vast tunnel down into the other rivers and so save the State an enormous amount of money, money which could be spent on other projects such as more reservoirs for water. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since it is generally known that South Africa, notwithstanding her vastness and her large surface area, has poor water supplies, it is obvious that we have to utilize and control what we have to the best advantage. For this reason I want to express a few sentiments regarding our two main water sources, namely subterranean water and the water of our rivers. In regard to the subterranean water, we find that the water table is dropping continuously. This is of course attributable to two main reasons. The first reason is that the subterranean water we use for human and animal consumption and for irrigation purposes is being extracted by means of boreholes. The second reason why our subterranean water table is dropping, is a source of great concern. This is being caused by our mines. The sole object and task of the mines are to mine minerals. Any subterranean water which is a nuisance to them is removed as quickly as possible. They attach no value to that precious water, water which through planning and control could be utilized quite beneficially for human, animal and agricultural use. I think the time has arrived for the hon. the Minister and his department to obtain a greater say or, the only say, over the control of subterranean water. At the moment this water is being wasted by the mines in many cases.

I also want to express a few ideas on international waters in Southern Africa. We are on the eve of an era in which various Bantu homelands are going to become independent. At the present time the Limpopo forms the border between the Republic on the one hand and Botswana, Rhodesia and Mozambique on the other. What is the present position concerning the water of the Limpopo? How much of that water are we allowed to utilize and how much are our neighbouring countries allowed to utilize? What is laid down in terms of international rules in respect of the water of a river such as this? As the Bantu homelands develop, a greater number of rivers will be affected. We have in mind only a few rivers, i.e. the Orange, the Olifants, the Komatie River and other. What is laid down in terms of the international rules in this regard? I would like the hon. the Minister to tell the House in which way negotiations will be conducted in future with the Bantu states which are going to become independent in the future. I want to suggest that we contact the governments of the homelands well in time as to the utilization of water of mutual rivers, or, as it were, international rivers, as they will be known once the Bantu states have become independent.

Since we are a part of Africa and have made considerable progress as far as water affairs are concerned, I want to suggest that we should apply our knowledge in the interests of good neighbourliness with Black states in Africa. We are doing this already. In this way Onderstepoort has been rendering assistance to African states for many years, and in many other spheres South Africa renders assistance to African states. Since the course we have followed in the sphere of water affairs has been a long and fruitful one, we may also share our knowledge and apply our know-how in the interests of other African states, for the promotion of good neighbourliness between the Republic of South Africa and Black states of Africa. This will be able to fulfil a fruitful role.

The hon. member for Meyerton will excuse me if I do not respond to his speech although he made a very constructive contribution. To the hon. member for Fauresmith I just want to say that I share his satisfaction with regards to the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam which appears on the R2 note, because half of this dam is situated in my constituency.

I would like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on the fine progress that was made again this year. [Interjection.] I hear groaning noises from people who are not sufficiently grateful for what they receive. Apparently they are not even grateful for the fact that they are entitled to sit in this House. During this year we had unparalleled floods over the greater part of our country. Irrigation works were either damaged or completely destroyed in the process. In this way the abnormally high rainfall in the catchment area of the Seekoei and Hondeblaf Rivers caused the coffer-wall at the P. K. le Roux Dam to overflow repeatedly. Through this catchment area and other catchment areas below the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam, more water flowed into the Orange River than has at any stage passed either over the wall or through the sluices of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam. I want to emphasize this fact because we had people in those parts of the world at that time who accused the Minister and his department by advancing as an argument that had the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam not been there, no floods would have occurred. The true facts are that at no stage during the floods, did the amount of water which passed through the sluices or over the wall of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam exceed 1 761 cumecs. A major portion of the water reached the Orange River below the Verwoerd Dam, i.e. downstream. For example, the Seekoei River alone caused 2 000 cumecs to flow into the Orange River. At the confluence of the Vaal and Orange Rivers at Douglas, 8 000 cumecs were measured at the height of the floods. It is calculated that had the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam not been there to control the flow of the water, the damage would have been tremendous because there would have been a flow of more than 13 000 cumecs at that point. Naturally, this would have caused far more damage along the lower reaches of the Orange River.

On this occasion I would like to express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister for the fact that he personally, accompanied by senior officials, investigated the extent of the damage immediately after the floods. I also want to thank the Minister for the privilege I had of accompanying him in order to form a clear picture of the damage caused in my constituency. I also want to thank him for making it possible for my constituents to commence carrying out repairs to their irrigation works as soon as circumstances allowed.

Throughout the world a shortage of protein foods exists. Indications of this shortage can already be seen in South Africa as well. In South Africa the standard of living of our people is rising every year and is accompanied by a greater demand for protein foods. Expediting the construction of the South bank canal of the P. K. le Roux Dam would go a long way towards coping with this shortage of protein foods in our country as well. Furthermore, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for patiently listening to our request that he should investigate the possibility of developing a new irrigation area of about 10 000 ha along the Orange/Fish River tunnel at Venterstad. I think it may even be possible to have the water pumped directly from the tunnel. The impression I gained was that this scheme would be a relatively cheap one. Once the south bank canal of the P. K. le Roux Dam and this new scheme at Venterstad have materialized, the voters of De Aar and I will be greatly indebted to the hon. the Minister for what he has done for us. I believe the Minister and his department have to face many problems, but I have always found it an interesting experience to see the way this department deals with these challenges.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for De Aar has expressed his thanks to those who were concerned in the fine job that was done by the hon. the Minister’s department during the floods last year. I should also like to add my thanks … [Interjections.] …—in deference to the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House— for the very fine job done by the Department of Water Affairs when the floods took place. The flooding of the P. K. le Roux Dam was certainly very ably handled and the crisis or emergency situation which arose was dealt with in a most efficient manner. There were people working terrifically hard around the clock and the job was very well done indeed. At this stage, however, I do not want to discuss the Orange River scheme.

I feel that the hon. the Minister should at this stage clarify the situation with regard to the J. G. Strydom Dam at Josini on the Pongola River. Some years ago, in the mid-’sixties, I myself went down to visit this area. At that stage the dam was incomplete. The point that I want to make in this regard is that this was a considerable number of years ago. I think that the dam was first envisaged round about 1962 or 1963 and I particularly remember that at that stage, in 1963, the estimated cost of it was in the neighbourhood of R36 million. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us some clarification of the present cost estimates of this project, specifically in the light of what appears to be a trouble situation at the moment. Earlier this year there were reports that the dam wall was defective. This was very worrying indeed. The Secretary for Water Affairs was then reported as saying that a study of the dam had revealed that the foundations on the north bank were not strong enough and that at that stage work had been in progress for two and a half years in order to strengthen those foundations. In the meantime, for safety reasons, he was not prepared to allow the dam to be filled to its full capacity. I believe that there is a large amount of speculation in this regard. I believe that many local people have asked for a commission of inquiry to be appointed into the whole affair and I think that the hon. the Minister should give us some clarification in regard to what the situation there is. He must tell us whether this dam wall is strong enough. If it is not strong enough and remedial work has to be done, what will this remedial work be and how much will it cost? Cost escalation at the moment is considerable in this sort of matter. The position is very, very worrying indeed, particularly because there seems to be a great question mark as to whether or not this dam was in the first instance worth the money that we are spending on it. The water in this dam is intended to irrigate the Makatini Flats. Statements have been made that all or part of the Mkatini Flats is going to become part of KwaZulu at a later stage. The Chief Minister of KwaZulu has stated that he does not want the Mkatini Flats. It is also interesting to note that in a recent statement it was said that the irrigation schemes to be undertaken under the Josini Dam would take 10 to 15 years to complete and that the dam would only become fully operational in regard to every aspect of its use for irrigation purposes, in another 15 years. This means in effect that the total time taken to get this whole scheme into operation as far as the Josini Dam is concerned, will be something like 25 years. Many people are worried about this. They feel that a period of 25 years is far too long. I think that the hon. the Minister owes it to South Africa to explain what exactly the situation there is. What is going to be done about the J. G. Strydom Dam? Is it in trouble? Is it ever going to reach the stage where it can be filled completely? What are the present costs involved? Are these costs reasonable in the light of what can be achieved in relation to the irrigation potential of that dam? The sooner we have clarification of these matters, the better.

Another aspect which also seems to have worried some people—again I speak subject to correction—is that I believe that the question of water from the dam pushing right up into the territory of our good neighbour Swaziland has caused considerable dissatisfaction on the part of Swaziland officials. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us clearly whether or not the Government of Swaziland was consulted in this, whether or not it had been envisaged that the water could push up into Swaziland, and what exactly the situation there is. I want to make it clear that all I am asking for is clarification because there is so much speculation, so much worry and so much anger about the whole scheme that I think the hon. the Minister will do himself and his department a favour if he makes it perfectly clear what was in fact going on. I certainly have been quite unable to find out the truth of the matter. The Sunday Times, for example, quoted the Secretary for Water Affairs as saying that the scheme was of no use to the farmers or to anybody else.

Do you believe the Sunday Times?

I do not know; I am asking the hon. the Minister for clarification. Mr. Chairman, this whole question of cost escalation is a serious one in the light of the considerable amount of work that still has to be done on the various phases and aspects of the Orange River scheme. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister, too, to give us an up-to-date assessment of just how much this scheme is going to cost us in the long run according to the latest guess. I know, for example, that in the case of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam the contractors received considerable additional payments for additional work that had to be done there; I think the figure was something like R14 million. The same thing applies to the P. K. le Roux Dam. In this case I believe that something like R20 million over and above the original estimate may have to be spent, but again I am asking for information; I am subject to correction. But I think in the light of the rapidly escalating civil engineering costs, the hon. the Minister should tell us at this stage exactly how much the whole scheme is going to cost. Sir, I may say that I raise this matter in a very sympathetic spirit because I am one of those people who believe in the necessity of the Orange River scheme, whatever its cost, because I appreciate full well the necessity of water in the future development of this country. In this respect, because of the fact that we have to depend so much for our future on the development of our water and the retention of water, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister go give us an assurance that in co-operation with the Department of Planning, factors such as population increases, etc., are being taken into account. I would also like to know whether he considers that the research into the question of water recycling is adequate, and also whether or not research is being done into desalination on a large scale. If the population estimates for South Africa at the turn of the century are anything like accurate, and we believe that they are, we are going to need a considerable amount of water to meet the requirements of our people. Obviously that water is not all going to come from the water schemes envisaged. Even the Orange River and the Tugela together could not adequately meet the water requirements of the whole of South Africa, and we are going to have to look very seriously indeed into this whole question of the recycling of water, and the same thing applies to desalination. Although I believe that the question of desalination of water is a very difficult one because of the expense involved, I would be very interested to know from the hon. the Minister just what is being done in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, water problems will always be with us. My own opinion, judging by my own observations of the way in which the Department of Water Affairs has been operating, is that they are doing a pretty good job. I just hope that the pre-planning is adequate; I hope that they really are looking into the future, realizing and appreciating the immensity of the task that lies before them, because without water, Sir, South Africa is going to be in considerable trouble.

The hon. member for Orange Grove put certain questions to the hon. the Minister. I want to tell him that the Minister is a very honest and frank man and one may expect a very honest and frank reply to one’s questions from him. It is a pity that the hon. member for Orange Grove first had to go and visit the Sunday Times to pick up a snippet of gossip there. Sir, like the hon. member for Piketberg, I want to start off by congratulating the hon. the Minister and his department on their annual report. In it we read of the scope of the activities of this department, and one stands amazed when one considers the extensive range of feats achieved by the department in the year under review, and that in spite of many problems, inter alia, a chronic shortage of staff. If we look further into the report, we see a comparison of the total amount spent annually out of the loan and revenue Votes to the number of engineers supervising expenditure. That amount increased each year, and from 1953 to 1973 it increased fourteenfold. One stands amazed at the fact that this work could have been done with so few engineers. Current expenditure per engineer’s post rose from R116 000 to R560 000. We are grateful to be able to say that there have been fine achievements through the years, and I want to attribute this to two factors. Firstly I think we are grateful to know that we have a dynamic man at the head of the department in the person of the hon. the Minister, and secondly that we have a highly competent Secretary to the department and a dedicated staff to assist him. These people are creating a new South Africa, a South Africa in which new heights ar being achieved in the field of development in an orderly and balanced way. I think South Africa can be thankful that this department undertakes its work in such a way that we are building a future where there will be enough water for everyone.

What I have said here also applies to the Western Cape scheme, or, as it is otherwise known, the Greater Boland Scheme. You know, Sir, when one passes through these 24 districts in which the department is engaged in schemes, one frequently arrives at places which have the appearance of a beehive, where activities are in progress, where the department is engaged in giving shape to a vision, a dream, the planning ideal of the Minister and his department. Wherever we go, we detect in our people in this area a new spirit of optimism, new inspiration and a new sense of security. Now, I am grateful to hear from the mouth of the hon. the Minister—and I want to thank him for that—that the rate of progress is more rapid than the hon. the Minister originally undertook. I am grateful to be able to read in decisions taken by the hon. the Minister that the principles which will apply in the allocation of these water sources will be the recognition of the legitimate claims of all sectors to this available water. This is very important, Sir. If this does indeed happen—and I believe it will happen this way—then we in the Boland shall have balanced economic growth; we shall be able to obtain the full utilization of our human potential; we shall have the essential spatial development in the Boland; and then this area will also be able to play its role and participate in the industrial growth of South Africa.

I should like to dwell for a moment on the greater Brandvlei/Kwaggaskloof scheme in the Breede River Valley. I want to tell you, Sir, that as things progress and the department is doing its work there, tension mounts up and great expectations prevail among the hundreds of farmers along this valley to see when the first waters are going to be stored, for these waters are going to bring assured summer supplies which are vital and essential to the development of that area. I should like to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister in regard to this greater Brandvlei scheme. I want to tell him that, as he knows, many people are concerned about a possible sand problem. But I know—and I also have confidence in the department—that if a driftsand problem were to arise, this problem would be dealt with most effectively on the basis of the necessary planning. I should nevertheless be glad if the hon. the Minister could give us a few ideas on this matter.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can tell us how far planning has progressed in connection with the possible damming up of certain mountain gorges in that area. I am referring specifically to Mitchell’s Pass, the Hex River and the Du Toit’s Kloof Pass. Sir, I should almost like to ask whether, if possible, we could not just dam up those gorges, even if those dams were to leak, for it is my modest opinion that if we could dam up some of these gorges, the department would have far more effective control over the run-off, the flow and the release of water to the Breede River below, where we hope to have the retaining wall. They will have control over the release of water, as it is required. Perhaps there could even be smaller feeding channels from these dams to the Brandvlei dam. Perhaps there could also be a smaller channel from the Smalblaar to the Brandvlei dam. And then, Sir, the hon. the Minister should please pardon me, but I want to ask whether his department cannot have another look at the possibility of constructing a wall in the Breede River between Robertson and Worcester at Rooiberg I know the hon. the Minister has already adopted a stand on that, but strong representations have come from people who believe that, if a wall could be built there, it would eliminate many storage problems in the river. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to be so kind as to tell us that it will be possible for him to look into this matter.

Sir, I want to say a very big thank you to the hon. the Minister and his department for the Bossieveld pumping scheme. That pumping scheme is saving many farmers from ruin. We are very grateful that the hon. the Minister was so magnanimous and took such firm action to help these people out of their predicament. We know that this area can render a contribution to our agricultural production there, which will mean very much to that district and to our country.

Finally I want to ask the hon. the Minister this: Is it the policy of his department that we may propagate pumping schemes along the Breede River as interim schemes? In this regard I have in mind pumping schemes which may serve as a temporary measure until such time as the large channels are constructed there one day. I have in mind, for instance, pumping schemes between the towns of Worcester and Robertson, where there are high-lying areas where the people are anxious to obtain water in the interim.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is time I replied. So many things are being asked and said that in the end my story could become too long. For that reason I should like, at this stage already, to reply to the very interesting questions and statements that came from the different sides of the House.

The hon. member for Mooi River took upon himself the task of becoming the successor to the previous chairman of his Party’s Water Affairs group, Mr. Douglas Mitchell. Over the years Mr. Mitchell and I had a good understanding in this House. He always tried to keep the deoates on a high level. I, on my part, appreciated this. We understood one another well. I am pleased the hon. member has said that he is going to try to continue this good tradition. The hon. member also repeated the five points which the former hon. member for South Coast, Mr. Mitchell, mentioned as being the actual policy of the United Party in regard to water affairs. I want to say at once that, in my opinion, it is difficult for a person to discuss the Department of Water Affairs or, say, the Department of Mines or similar departments, where one is dealing with physical filings, where matters are simply right or wrong according to planning and the good order which stems from that, or a certain kind of policy which differs radically from another kind of policy because the things which are determined by water affairs, for example, are stipulated on a scientific basis. Where there is scientific stipulation, what is involved is not so much a policy, but rather whether a Government is prepared to do what is necessary to expand the required infrastructure according to the requirements of the economy of the country. Certain international norms have already been laid down in regard to how things should be constructed, how things should be planned, designed and built, and how one makes the infrastructure as far as water affairs is concerned an integral part of the economy of the State. There are those international norms, and all that this Government does on its part is to accept those norms as its responsibility, to seek to apply them to the best of its ability, and to try, within the physical means of the country, to encourage the economy of the country through its expenditure on, and sound planning, supervision and administration of its water affairs.

I now want to enumerate to the hon. member his five points of policy again. In the first place he said it is their policy to supply “communities” with water. But of course, what State in the world will store waiter without supplying communities with water? That is already the point of departure. To tell the truth, the report of the Water Plan Commission tells South Africa explicitly that if all the communities of South Africa are to be supplied with water in time, there are also certain norms which have to be laid down and objects which have to be pursued in time. What has happened during the past five to six years has been nothing but the pursuit of those objects, and this was done in such an excellent way that everyone would agree across the floor of this House today that brilliant work has been done and that it could hardly be improved on. Therefore I maintain that the basis of the actions of the Department of Water Affairs over the past few years has been to supply the great, developing economy of South Africa with the necessary water in time, otherwise it would simply not have been able to develop. I want to mention an example. During the past few days we had to make an announcement in regard to the development along the upper reaches of the Orange River which is going to take place in respect of mining activities in Aggeneys in the vicinity of Pofadder, both the known development and that which is not yet known and which is expected to take place within the next ten years. We had to announce that a water board was being established, that the central water conduction system had to be indicated, and had to be completed quickly enough to supply those communities.

The history of water development in South Africa over the past six years testifies to this. That is why the imaginative schemes of the Orange/Vaal and along the lower reaches of the Orange River itself, the great development which had to take place in the Northern Transvaal, and what happened in the Boland, were tackled. This was done in an effort to set to work in such a way and in such good time that the water economy of the country could form the basis on which the economy of the country could be built.

The second point which the hon. member made was that preference should be given to the development of our own resources over that of the development of foreign resources. We have argued this matter frequently. Of course it is the correct standpoint, for what country in the world would develop foreign resources if it had its own resources to develop? That is why we in South Africa have now proceeded with the second development of the Tugela/Vaal scheme—which is a cheaper development—rather than to proceed with a scheme on the Lesotho highlands. It is in the economic interests of South Africa to do it in that way, and that is why we did so. But the day may come when this country of ours, as other countries in the world are doing, will have to supplement its water supplies from friendly territories, if there is water available and agreements can be concluded. However, this is not a practical step for us today for within the foreseeable future we who are sitting in this House will still have the task of developing South Africa’s own resources. I do not think it will be necessary to develop the resources of neighbouring territories if we have not yet developed our own resources to the maximum.

I come now to the next point. The hon. member said that the system which he advocated was that which Mr. Mitchell had been so fond of terming the “grid system”, or rather integrated water conduction systems throughout South Africa. If one asks an engineer how to get water to one important development area, and one gives him a map showing the resources, any engineer who is worth his salt will immediately tell one that one can do it by integrating the various resources, i.e. where it is practicable. But I issued a warning and said that we should be careful with the idea of an integrated water conduction system if we use the analogy of an integrated power conduction system. Because water does not run upstream, it may be very expensive. This can only be done where the topography is of a satisfactory nature, and it can be economically beneficial. The Boland scheme, which is now in the process of development, is nothing but an integration of the three rivers with the object of bringing water to the various consumption points in the easiest way. The fact that we have integrated the Natal rivers with the Transvaal rivers and are in this way assisting the entire development on the Witwatersrand, is in fact characteristic of a scheme by means of which one joins various river systems together through pumping stations, and in this way brings about an integration. With a view to the development in years to come, this will have to happen on a larger scale. I can tell you at this stage already that I cannot see how we will be able to continue with the provision of water in the far northern Transvaal, for example, unless we also integrate those few remaining rivers which have not yet been developed to the maximum and pump the water underground, or perhaps, by way of pumping stations, over the hills to get it to the various consumption points. The way in which water is today being supplied to Pietersburg out of the Letaba River is also an example of this, although on a smaller scale.

The hon. member said that there should be proper allocation, something which he is very concerned about. He wants the various sectors of the economy to receive their share of the water an that we, before we have completed such a water scheme, should allocate the water to the various future consumers. If the hon. member were to read the various White Papers which appeared recently, he would see that this is precisely what is happening. I want to mention an example to him. If he reads the White Paper on the Mogol River, he will see that a portion of the water is reserved for agriculture, a portion for mining, a portion for future industrial development, and a portion for stock watering purposes, if this should be necessary in future for the bushveld hinterland. In other words, it is already being done in this way. Another example of this is the Berg River scheme for the Boland in which it has been precisely determined which portion will in future be allocated to Cape Town, and which portion will be allocated to agriculture. In other words, this planning is in progress. In fact, it has been in progress for a very long time. This guide-line is laid down in the report of the Water Plan Commission. If we did not do it in this way we would not have a hope of being able to allocate to all the sectors their fair share of water by the end of the century.

The hon. member, as well as other hon. members, referred to research. A few years ago already I told hon. members from this bench that we know how much water we will have available at the end of the century, and I said that we know that this will not be a great quantity. I also said that unless we lay the foundations at this stage already by including the new sources in our calculations in our research, we will not be able to meet the needs of South Africa from our existing surface resources. The hon. member will recall that it was for this reason that we appointed the Water Research Commission, viz. to join and co-ordinate all the forces in South Africa so that we could eliminate the backlog which we are building up. If hon. members were to glance at the annual report of the Water Research Commission today, they would see that it is a document which says nothing other than that South Africa is taking the lead in this sphere today. The hon. member would be well advised to page through it and to see what is being done in the various spheres. He will see that we are laying a foundation and are making use of science to ensure that South Africa is able to eliminate its backlog in the sphere of water in future and to help solve any problems which it may experience.

The hon. member for Mooi River referred to a few matters. He referred to the river in that part of the world in which he lives, the Umgeni River, the river which supplies Durban with water. The hon. member said that the Umgeni is such a large river that it should in fact be able to supply 20 million people in future. I do not know who the person was who made that calculation, but he added one nought too many. It cannot supply 20 million people with water, but at the most 2 million. This is so because the Umgeni River simply does not have the potential. If the hon. member considers the availability of water from the Umgeni River system, and he knows what the consumption basis is what we accept for human consumption in South Africa, he will know that it is just not physically possible to provide more than two million people with water from the Umgeni River in future. There is definitely not enough water to supply 20 million people.

There are already 2 million people.

That is why we are adding other water supplies, for the existing water is almost finished. That is in fact the whole point. I want to inform the hon. member that one cannot simply increase the amount of water in a river by building additional dams across it. That is what is happening. Reasonably good use is already being made of the storage potential of the Umgeni River. We can create at the most one other storage point, but no more, otherwise one would subsequently have a whole series of dams which may mean an over-development of the river. It is not physically or technically feasible. The example of the Phoenix area which the hon. member mentioned to me is one of the few possible areas. Since we are at present building the Albert Falls dam, there is no reason to develop that area. I can inform the hon. member that we are weighing up the possibilities of that area against the possibilities of other areas. I do, nevertheless, want to say to him that he should not proceed on the assumption that we can simply build a lot of small dams, and that we will then have water. The fact of the matter is that it is not the number of areas which counts, but the total capacity of the river.

The hon. member asked what the consumption in regard to the water of the Orange River would be. In the case of the Orange River there is tremendous storage, and we are preserving sufficient reserves for the future. In the case of the Orange River scheme it is clear what we have to do with the water. Let me inform the hon. member, and the hon. member for Orange Grove who referred to it, at once what the position in the case of the Orange River is. The Orange River system was developed with a view in the first place to supplying the riparian areas with water; secondly, to supply water to consumption points in good time, consumption points which cannot develop if proper provision is not made; and, thirdly, to hold back sufficient reserves if development should take place in future—something which we cannot foresee in our own time—for which provision would have to be made. I want to mention an example to the hon. member. When the Orange River scheme was conceived, the possibility of taking water to Port Elizabeth had not yet been mooted. I do not want to recount the whole story to you again, Sir, for I have already done so on a previous occasion. The development in Port Elizabeth is so great that I had to decide at the time to reserve part of the water which was to have been given to Port Elizabeth through the Paul Sauer Dam and to give Port Elizabeth a far greater assurance for the future from the Orange River. The hon. member will recall that there have recently been mining developments in that area, and that we do not know what the end of those developments will be. We only know that they have great potential. I am referring to the mines at Prieska and the development at Aggeneys, which I have already mentioned. These are developments which are taking place in the vicinity of the Orange River. If one has such developments in the vicinity of a river and one does not have a necessary water supply, what becomes of such mines and towns under severe drought conditions? In other words, such a storage unit has to be constructed simply for the sake of the security it provides. Can you imagine, Sir, what the position was a few years ago when there was neither this dam nor this major development? The situation then was critical. Along the lower reaches of the Orange River, at Upington for example, people barely had drinking water. Apart from agriculture, surely one cannot have or allow major industrial and mining development if one does not have that measure of assurance. For that reason I maintain that the development of the Orange River with its major dam schemes, is intended in the first place, apart from anything else, to ensure security for future developments. If there had not been that security it would not have been possible, for example, to commence the copper mining activities at Prieska, i.e. if one had not known that it would have a constant water supply. Therefore, apart from anything else, apart from preconceived major industrial development which we may have in the years which lie ahead, it is essential to have security as far as economic development along the river and in its vicinity is concerned, and also along its subsidiary rivers down towards the Fish River.

The hon. member also told me that we should undertake the necessary research in regard to flood control. He said that we should have an in-depth investigation with a view, if I understood him correctly, to the control of floods in future. I can inform the hon. member that flood control is a very interesting matter. It is a kind of undertaking which embraces various disciplines. The fact that it was possible today for various hon. members to refer to the wonderful way in which the recent major flood was controlled, is an indication of the progress which has been made in this science during the past few years, in order to control it as neatly as was done recently. It is quite true, as hon. members said here, that the inflow into the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam was enormous. I may as well mention the figures to hon. members. While the inflow along the upper reaches of the dam was approximately 6 000 cumec (a cumec is 35 cusec), the outflow was 1 700 cumec. In other words, it was possible to absorb across the surface of the dam something like 4 000 cumec for long enough to break the force of the flood water in such a way that in spite of the great damage below the dam, we were nevertheless able to curtail the outflow from the Verwoerd Dam to a minimum. Can you imagine, Sir, what the position would have been at the confluence of the Vaal and Orange Rivers through which 8 000 cumecs passed since only 1 700 cumecs flowed from the Verwoerd Dam and a further 4 000 was held back? Can you imagine, Sir, what chaotic conditions would have prevailed at Upington if that 4 000 cumec of water had had to be included? For that reason I say that the control which has been built in there, is an interesting matter. The disciplines which this includes are of a divergent nature and are controlled by the hydrological division of the Department of Water Affairs. We in South Africa have made quite considerable progress with that kind of study, and I think that in this sphere we can be satisfied that we can not only teach South Africa but also the countries outside South Africa quite a good deal about this. The conditions are also of such a nature that they lend themselves to this. Our major rivers have a dynamic flow characteristic. The examples which we have had in the past were of such a nature that we were able to learn a great deal from them, and I think that we may be very proud today of the fact that we were able, by means of our flood control measures, to eliminate a great deal of damage. If we were to experience such flood conditions again after the P. K. le Roux Dam has been completed and we were able to use those two dams in conjunction to control those flood waters, I think we could rest assured that we would at that stage be able to eliminate a great deal of damage.

The hon. member also put questions to me in regard to the Tugela River and the Spioenkop Dam. The hon. member told me that people were saying that it had not been necessary to build the Spioenkop Dam because we had in the meantime effected a change to the entire scheme. That is partially true, but not altogether. The reason why it is still necessary to have the Spioenkop Dam at the lowest point of the development scheme, is this: If, in a time of drought one removes all the water in the upper reaches of the river by pumping it to Johannesburg, and one has not created any reserves, what will then become of the people along the lower reaches of that river? One would then experience difficulties. It would then be possible to reproach us. It would then be possible to say to us that in times of a low flow we pump the water away and make no provision for the towns and for the riparian dwellers along the lower reaches of that river. For the sake, therefore, of the protection of the rights of the riparian owners along the lower reaches of the river, one cannot develop the upper reaches unless one has made provision for the protection of those people.

The plan has changed from the one thing to the other.

Yes, the plans have changed considerably. To tell the truth as far as the future is concerned, we can include quite a number of very interesting changes with regard to the further development of water systems along the upper reaches of the Tugela.

I now want to refer to the hon. member for Piketberg. He also raised the question of flood control. He also referred to the Olifants River and the Doom River. Here in the Boland the Aspoort scheme is one of the schemes which is giving rise to general discussion. It is one of the schemes in regard to which many people have become rather emotional. For the information of hon. members who may possibly not know this, the Aspoort scheme is situated on the far side of the Ceres-Karoo where the Doom River which rises in the Ceres mountains flows northwards starting the Ceres-Karoo area, and down to the Olifants River. There were representations to the effect that the State should institute investigations in that region—I am referring here to the hon. member for Piketberg—into the possibility of effecting the development of the Ceres-Karoo and building a dam at a place called Aspoort. After all the calculations and investigations had been made, we decided not to do so. I now want to repeat to the hon. member for Piketberg on this occasion that the Aspoort scheme has now been shelved, once and for all. It cannot be built, because it is too expensive. Secondly, the additional works will be so expensive that it will amount to an estimated amount of R10 000 per morgen. This will have to be the amount of the investment necessary to develop this. No government will be able to afford this. Consequently, let us forget about Aspoort altogether.

I also undertook to ascertain whether there are development possibilities in the vicinity of the Doom River in that area. This investigation the department is in fact making. The latest reports which I have seen do not seem very promising to me. The hon. member has now proposed that we should allow the water to flow past and then use it down here, and I think the hon. member for Piketberg does have a point there, because the Doom River is part of the major water complex of the Greater Boland, and if we have faith in the development of the Boland, as I do in fact have then we must not consider the millions which are there now; we must consider what the position will be in 30 to 50 years’ time, and it would be foolish not to store away its reserves now for development. Therefore I think it would be more sensible not to have the development at Aspoort now, but to leave it for subsequent use, wherever it may be.

Sir, the hon. member then asked whether we could build the Keerom Dam; whether we could stem the water below the mountain. I do not know; we are looking into this. We have our hands full with the major schemes which are being developed at the moment. As soon as these schemes have been completed, we will know what the next scheme is that we have to tackle. At this stage we do not in any case have the money or the people to proceed with the Boland scheme over and above the other major developments. I think the hon. member has a good point when he says that we should not allow the development to take place along the upper reaches of the Doom River, but rather along the lower reaches. We shall go into this.

The hon, member for Fauresmith referred to flood damage there and to the assistance the Government was able to render to the afflicted persons in the floodstricken areas. I am grateful that we were able to set aside almost R4 million for the repair of pump installations and waterworks. The hon. member for Fauresmith raised the matter which is a sore point with me; this is a matter of pride for the department, and I think for all of us here, and that is the question of research and also the role which our universities and specifically the University of the Orange Free State is playing in this regard. During the past few years it has been possible to channelize the interest of all researches and all scientists in South Africa, whether on the part of the State or of the universities or of the C.S.I.R., within the Water Research Commission, and for that I am very grateful.

Sir, apart from the 19 pilot projects which have already been approved, pilot projects where scientists from the private sector and the universities and other bodies are brought together to undertake research, I had to approve a further three during the past few days and will probably have to approve others as well shortly. I agree with the hon. member that we are grateful for the work these people are doing. In particular, we are grateful that we were able to persuade the University of the Orange Free State to take a special interest in the question of research with regard to our subterranean water resources. This, too, is going to be very important in future. Sir, the University of the Orange Free State is the first university in South Africa to have established a chair of geo-hydrology at which we will train geo-hydrologists. This faculty will give us the necessary research workers to enter this field which is of such importance to South Africa, namely research into our subterranean water position. I think that all of us here may be very grateful that the university has established this chair. I understand that there are now a few first-year students who are studying geo-hydrology.

Sir, the hon. member for Meyerton referred to the mines. He was quite right in saying that the home for research with regard to our subterranean water resources will definitely have to be decided on in future. I agree with the hon. member; this is an old matter. Up till now, as the hon. member knows, the Geological Survey Division has rendered this service to the Department of Water Affairs, and it has rendered good services. It is true that this department is still interested in the subject because with the removal of water from mines, it is of the utmost importance to have the necessary knowledge and to abstract the water and to get the mines dry so that gold-mining operations may continue. I just want to say that the Public Service Commission, together with the two departments concerned, the Department of Mines and Water Affairs, is in fact going into this matter at the present moment, and that we will probably, before we meet again, reach the necessary final decision in regard to where the home of this service should be.

The hon. member also put questions to me in regard to the international legal rules, i.e. what the position is with countries which have certain rivers in common, such as the Limpopo, for example, where there are four different riparian countries involved, and which is of great importance to South Africa and will become of even greater importance in future. If the homelands in South Africa become independent, then the question of water and who controls it and how it is being controlled, is very important. In brief, I can just say that the international legal rules, covering the control of water between countries, were laid down in Helsinki in 1966; we call them the Helsinki rules.

Sir, I do not now want to discuss the complexity of the Helsinki rules. The essence of these is that if two or more countries have interests in common in a river, the rule of the best common utilization will determine how such a river will be developed. In our case, we are having talks with Lesotho, since we have interests in common in the Orange River. In the case of the Limpopo, we have interests in common with Botswana, Rhodesia and Mozambique, and we are constantly holding talks with one another in this regard. We have reached a mutual agreement that we will, under this rule of the best common utilization, discuss all developments openly with one another. Their scientists and ours jointly make a calculation of what the total average annual downflow of such a river is, and how it should be apportioned, and how it will be developed jointly. Up to now the standpoint has been that we lay down the rule that we will develop the upper reaches of the Crocodile River, which actually begins to provide water from Johannesburg down to where it runs into the ocean in Mozambique, and that we must allow a certain percentage of the water through. This is agreed upon.

Normally the quantity of water one has to allow through to the lower reaches is a percentage of the quantity of water which is available for 70% or 80% of the time— a percentage therefore of the water during that 70% to 80% of the time. It could also be that it will be the full 70% or 80% flow. You can understand that the river with that water which flows for 70% or 80% of the year, is a small stream. The large stream flows for a short period. In other words, if one lets through that portion of the water which flows for 70% or 80% of the time—and I am saying 70% or 80% of the time for it differs in our agreements, and in certain cases it is 80% and in other cases we agreed to 70%— then it means that the low flow of the river is being allowed through almost all the time. It is usually a flow which is relatively low, and which in many cases, practically speaking, only gives you enough water for watering cattle.

As far as flood waters are concerned, one knows that flood waters come down with great force, as all the rivers come down in force. We hold back as much as we can in our dams, and the remainder flows past to those countries in any case. The principle by means of which this is controlled is based on the Helsinki rules which adopt the standpoint of the best common utilization of such a river. As far as the homelands are concerned, I want to say that the Department of Water Affairs and the other deparments concerned, inter alia, the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, have a study committee at the moment for the precise purpose of determining the basis of this kind of division. I think, too, that this is a very wise step. And all the hon. members will agree with me. It is no use subsequently having a dispute over whose water belongs to whom, for we adopt the standpoint that all of us in South Africa have the right to development and the right to water. For that reason we must find a formula which will cause everyone to feel that everyone in South Africa will have his fair share of that life giving gift without which nothing can develop and no one can live.

The hon. member for De Aar also referred to the Verwoerd Dam. It is true that we had a pleasant journey to that dam, and had a pleasant time seeing what there was to see. The hon. member also referred to Venterstad and he asked me in regard to the Venterstad area whether it is not possible, in the vicinity of the tunnel route, to pump water from the tunnel and use it for irrigation in this area, rather than that we should establish irrigation schemes in other places. When the development took place, and the planning was being done, there was no such plan, and when I appeared on the scene there was no such plan either. But the Department of Water Affairs and I would be very stupid if we received representations on such a matter and did not have open minds. Our open minds tell us that we shall consider the possibility. In fact, the department has already given instructions, the Secretary has already directed, that it should be established whether there is anything of substance in this plan, whether it is technically possible, and whether it is inexpensive enough to make such a development possible. If it were to be possible to have irrigation development along the tunnel route with water which is pumped from the tunnel out of the shafts which already exist, this will, as you know, have to take place in consultation with the Departments of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Credit and Land Tenure and Agricultural Technical Services, because they also have to give advice on the nature and the serviceableness of the soil which will in this way have to be placed under irrigation. I just want to tell you that we are proceeding with this investigation and if there is anything in it, you will hear about it.

†The hon. member for Orange Grove made various remarks about flood control. I want to thank the hon. member for the remarks which he has made in this regard. I have already stated that I am of the opinion that flood control in South Africa is being carried out very efficiently by the Department of Water Affairs at the present moment.

The hon. member asked a question about the J. G. Strydom Dam. I want to point out that this dam will in future not be known by that name. As I have already indicated, a request was received that the Magol Dam which Adv. Strydom foresaw would one day be built, should be named after him. This dam is going to be built in the constituency of Waterberg, which Adv. Strydom represented in this House. This request was received from the local people and from Adv. Strydom’s family. The Mogol Dam will then be called the Hans Strydom Dam. As the present J. G. Strydom Dam has not officially been given that name, as it is not yet completed, I acceded to the request that we should rather call the Mogol Dam the Hans Strydom Dam in future.

The hon. member has asked what the position is, i.e. whether the dam will break and why we are presently engaged on work on the northern abutment. He has also asked whether the dam can be filled in view of the fact that people say that if the dam is full, it will break. I want to say that there is not the slightest chance that anything serious will happen to the dam if it is full. As I have stated in public as well as in this House, the reason why we do not allow the dam to be filled, is that we are still carrying out part of the authorized construction programme of the dam to reinforce the northern abutment. A similar course of action was followed in connection with the Paul Sauer Dam and I may point out that the Rhodesians saw fit to have the Kariba Dam reinforced. It is, as a matter of fact, the general practice over the world to have such reinforcement work done on dams. Such reinforcement work should be done while the dam is being constructed and not afterwards. The water which will be stored in this dam is at present not needed in the lower areas of the Pongola River and we therefore can avail ourselves now of the opportunity of carrying out the reinforcement work.

One of the Sunday newspapers had an article the other day in which it was said that the Secretary for Water Affairs had stated that the dam would break. The article said that the dam would not be filled for safety reasons. It continued—

I spoke to Mr. Kriel about this. He is an eminent engineer and anybody knowing anything about such matters will realize that Mr. Kriel, being a reasonable man, could never have made such a remark. Mr. Kriel told me that he had said to the reporter that it was advsiable to strengthen the northern embankment. This was stated also in this House. The report also stated—

Of course it can withstand such a flood. It would not only withstand the filling of the dam, but also a major flood. I want to ask the hon. members just to recall what happened with the Paul Sauer Dam. The Paul Sauer Dam, you will recall, was being reinforced on the southern bank, and before reinforcement had been completed, that major flood a couple of years ago came down and 12 feet of water tumbled over the wall. When will one see such a flood again? Yet nothing happened. Nothing will happen here either.

*Inquiries in regard to the costs were also made from various quarters. It is being said that the dam is now going to cost R36 million. Anyone referring to the costs should kindly look at these documents. Here I have the Estimates of Expenditure on Loan Account. If one were to examine the Loan Account, one would see that it is stated very emphatically that R36 million is to be allocated for the scheme. Of that amount R18 million is for the dam. On the canals which are still being constructed, an amount of only approximately R3 million has been spent so far. Only when the canals have been completed in ten years’ or 25 years’ time, or whenever they are completed—we do not know when they will be completed—will the total cost for the dam and canals be R36 million. People who are continually commenting on these matters and who want to arouse the suspicion that we are taking too long to implement such a project, do not always know what is involved. Let me remind them that a start was made on the Vaal Harts scheme in 1933. Do hon. members know when the last section of that scheme was completed; that is, when the terminal points of the canals were completed, and all the people were living there? Towards the end of the sixties. It takes years to complete something like this. Mr. Kriel also referred to this and he was quite right. If the Secretary for Water Affairs refers to that, and says that it will take so many years before the project has been completed, then that is of course true. It takes many years before one sets through with the work. One does not only begin to utilize the water when the canals have been completed one day. One begins to utilize the water as soon as each section is completed. An incorrect impression is created if it is said that water is not yet being utilized.

I want to say that construction work on the canals is in progress. In the years which lie ahead, we will probably have to work more rapidly, but building miles of canals is an extremely time-consuming task. It is a very slow task; not rapid work. The building of the canals is the slowest part of the construction work. A dam is built rapidly, but it is not possible to build miles of canals as quickly. Hon. members are themselves aware of this. I want to say that the canals will be utilized in future.

I have been asked from various quarters whether the project is going to fall within the Bantu area. Let me please make the matter dear again. As far as the entire development of the dam and Josini is concerned, it has been tentatively stated that the Department of Bantu Affairs may include the project in its calculations if it is able to utilize it in the rounding off of the homeland areas. The Department of Bantu Affairs is considering the matter. I, as Minister of Water Affairs, believe that that department will eventually be able to fit it in, but until such time as the department has completed its studies and returns and says that it is taking all or only a part of it, I can say nothing. All I can say, is that the principle has been decided on that it can be allocated to that homeland. This Parliament will decide whether the Josini Dam and the areas below the dam will be included in a Bantu homeland, which will, I think, be KwaZulu. All I want to say at the moment is that it has been decided to make the offer of allowing the development to go to them. I still think that this would be the sensible thing to do.

We can argue as we like, but this kind of development cannot always take place in the White area. I could tell you that we have wonderful developments, but I think that we could with great pleasure give one of these developments to our homelands. After all, it is not only we who use water, but they as well. For that reason it is my standpoint that if the Bantu homeland is able to utilize it properly, it would be a good step.

Let me also say at once to the hon. member, who asked about this; that the area which can be irrigated consists of plus-minus 68 000 ha. The area which has been allocated for irrigation and which can conveniently be irrigated because the water is always available for that purpose and because one does not want to overburden the resources by using everything for irrigation and leaving nothing in reserve for the future, is, however, 35 000 ha. In other words, we have decided that it will be possible to irrigate 35 000 ha. If this does in fact happen, it will be a good and fine development below the Josini Dam. This will also put a stop to the stories that a dam should never have been built and that the farmers, whether they are White or Black, living below the dam, will not do justice to the water from the Josini Dam.

I come now to the hon. member for Worcester who referred in his speech to the question of driftsand at the Kwaggaskloof dam. I want to tell him that it is a danger. Drift sand remains a great danger. As the position is at the moment at the Kwaggaskloof dam, the old Marais lake, it is a problem. However, the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry are co-operating to overcome the problem. The hon. member can understand that if plants are used to form buffers in the water, and they only grow slowly, a solution cannot be found overnight, but only in a few years’ time. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we are proceeding with this.

The hon. member also referred to the construction of dams across mountain ravines. I want to tell the hon. member that we should not try to dam up all these ravines. It would be so expensive that the voters of the hon. member would not be able to use that water. The ravines are short and very narrow, with enormous walls. The unit costs would be enormous. I do not think we should do so. It is far better to concentrate the water at one point than to distribute it over a number of points, each of which loses a portion through evaporation. Through evaporation we are losing 27% of the water which we have stored in South Africa. It is therefore sensible to have one concentration instead of quite a number. I do not think we ought to do so. In any event, it would be too expensive.

The hon. member also asked whether we cannot construct a dam at Rooiberg along the lower reaches of the Breede River. My reply to the hon. member is that we should be careful that we do not cause brack formation wherever we build dams. The hon. member for East London North will also be able to tell him that in his area the major problem is silting up and brack development. We must be very careful not to construct a brack channel or a large brack dam along the Breede River. Unless research indicates that we are safe, we would be doing the Boland a terrible disservice if we were to construct such a dam which would subsequently give us more headaches than anything else.

The hon. member also asked me whether we advocate interim pumping schemes. Yes, provided we are sensible in propagating this matter, provided it does not cost too much and provided we do not go and tell everyone that the Minister says we must all, in the meantime construct a lot of small pumping schemes. Provided that is not done, it would be sensible to construct such interim schemes.

You have not dealt with my questions yet.

Oh yes, the hon. member for East London North also asked questions. I have only just turned over the page containing notes on his speech. It was not my intention to omit him.

The hon. member asked whether we could do anything to reinforce the embankments of the Theebusspruit, through which the canal water comes, so that we do not promote erosion. I want to inform the hon. member that during the past three to four years it would not have been feasible to have done what he suggested, because it was so dry that we would not have been able to get anything we had planted there growing. Once the water is there, I think it would then be a sensible step. We are ourselves considering going into this matter together with the Department of Agriculture to see how we can establish vegetation on the embankment so that these may be protected against erosion. The best way in which this could be done and the best time when it could be done, is to do it when there is water, to keep alive whatever one has planted. This year is a good year, but if we had done it in previous years, it would not have worked. The idea is however to do what the hon. member suggested. Our two departments intend looking into this matter in any case.

Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure for us to see with what seriousness the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs agrees with us that water is one of the most important and essential natural resources in South Africa and also with what earnestness he can agree with our policy, because we know that he can be a formidable political fighter if he wants to be. Water is not only essential for sustaining our lives by quenching our thirst and producing our daily food, but it also improves the very quality of our lives by making it possible for us to have our daily bath. It therefore becomes an essential imperative to make careful studies of its conservation, its supply and its efficient use not only at present but also in future. Mr. R. J. Laburn, the chief engineer of the Rand Water Board, was quoted as saying that the Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vaal area was the most important in South Africa and that great attention should be given to its future water needs which would increase by amount 5% to 6% per annum for many years to come. He also said that by the year 2000 it would be required to supply between 10 000 000 and 12 000 000 people living in the Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vaal region with something like 5 000 megalitres of water. This is quite a formidable task. We therefore appreciate what is being done by the Department of Water Affairs and also particularly by the Water Research Commission. In spite of these efforts, however, it shocks one to see with what disrespect this elixir of life is being treated by certain members of the public. They dump their rubbish and even their old cars into the streams, particularly in the urban areas where it is the responsibility of the local authorities to prevent it and to clear up the mess. But whose responsibility is it when this visible pollution takes place outside the urban or peri-urban areas?

The more nefarious type of pollution is the less visible kind, caused by mineral salts like nitrates and phosphates, and also the various components derived from detergents which cause eutrophication in dams like the Rietvlei, Roodeplaat and particularly the Hartebeespoort Dam. We have had many complaints from fishermen in the past about this kind of thing. The only way to do something about this is to educate the public. I feel that not sufficient is being done to educate the public to an awareness of this kind of pollution. They use detergents liberally instead of rationing themselves in the use of detergents. What particularly worries me is the way in which industrialists are still able to discharge their effluent into the sewers, the stormwater drains and also directly into the rivers, especially on the Witwatersrand. In doing so they pollute the very water that has to be recycled for our own drinking purposes. It goes down the Klip and other rivers into the Vaal to be purified and re-used. Effluents from the metallurgical operations such as electroplating, galvanizing or the pickling of metal, flow into the municipal sewerage system. Metals such as zinc, iron, copper, manganese, nickel, tin, lead and chrome go down the drains and could adversely affect the performance of sewerage purification processes if the levels are allowed to rise. I know that this is not the responsibility of the hon. the Minister’ of Water Affairs because in terms of the Water Act, Act No 54 of 1956, once an industry is established within a municipal area and its effluent is accepted by the local authority, the responsibility for the proper control and proper disposal of the effluent passes to the local authority concerned. The standards set by local authorities are often high to ensure that purification processes are not adversely affected, and that the effluent complies with the requirements of the Department of Water Affairs. Some of the industrialists have been known to by-pass the municipal sewerage systems—this is where the trouble lies—and they dispose of the effluent on top of mine dumps, down the stormwater drains or directly into rivers. Where industrial effluents are dumped onto mine dumps outside municipal areas and allowed to leach into rivers, I believe this becomes directly the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs.

About 55 000 tons of hydrochloric and sulphuric acid is used yearly in the Transvaal. A considerable amount of this is used in the metallurgic industries. The spent pickle liquor collected after the pickling or cleaning of metal surfaces or after the galvanizing process, is then disposed of down the sewers. Quite often it is diluted up to 50% by additional water. Where it is above the required standards set, it is often neutralized with lime, increasing the total dissolved solids in the effluent considerably and pushing up the cost enormously to purify that water. The additional cost to the user of buying the lime and transporting it, and the additional costs of purifying the effluent are considerable. We are aware that there are companies that specialize in the reclamation and the regeneration of the spent pickle liquor. Such a company is prepared to fetch the spent pickle liquor in tankers and also to return the purified acid. However, because the Department of Water Affairs allows the industrialists to go ahead and dump their waste directly into rivers without charging them, they are encouraged to do this. Consequently one finds that our rivers quite often are so polluted that the water becomes completely importable. One such company is able to process 50 000 tons per year of this spent pickle liquor to this company to be pro-only approximately 750 tons to 800 tons per month. With an intake of 1 000 tons per month of spent pickle liquor, they would be able to break even. At the moment this very company is threatened with having to discontinue its operations because industrialists refuse to send their pickle liquor to this company to be processed. It is so much easier for the industrialists to dump it down the drain. If this company were to cease operations, we would be losing a valuable asset because of the lack of control by the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs. This would result in the loss of an industry that makes a positive contribution to the control of pollution on the Witwatersrand. We find that similar problems are developing in regard to old engine oil in that garages quite often dump their old oil directly into rivers or down mine shafts, once again contaminating our underground water. We feel that it has become imperative that some legislation be passed to control this sort of action and prevent this type of thing taking place. This would also encourage and make economical the recycling of so-called effluents.

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to make use of this opportunity to convey the thanks of my voters to the hon. the Minister and his Department for the action they took in respect of one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the Eastern Cape, which occurred during March this year. It was on that occasion that employees of this department in both the Fish River Valley and the Little Fish River valley gave outstanding assistance in regard to the repairing of road and rail links, so much so that some of these departmental staff who gave assistance to public bodies, forfeited their lives. We want to convey our sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister and his department for the exceptional helpfulness they displayed towards my voters. Water Affairs was ready night and day to give assistance in cases where certain of my voters had been trapped by the flood-waters. It is said that according to official measurements, this flood reached an even higher level than the flood that raged in the lower Fish River valley a hundred years ago. In 1874 the flood in the lower Fish River valley reached a certain level and the flood during March this year reached an even higher level than the highest watermark of that flood which occurred 100 years ago. This gives us an indication of the magnitude of the power that can be reached by the flood-waters in our country. And yet we are here dealing with a department under the leadership of the hon. the Minister which even makes 100% subsidies available to have the damaged waterworks repaired. It is estimated that the damage caused amounts to about R800 000. This does not include the farmers’ harvests destroyed or the damage suffered by farmers whose production ceased as a result of this flood disaster.

Another threat in those parts, is the mineralization of our water. As we know, there is a major citrus industry in the lower Sundays River valley, an industry that earns valuable foreign exchange for the Republic. I want to state here that the citrus tree can only take water with a mineral content of at most 200 parts per million. At the intake of the Mentz Dam it is at present being measured at something over 900 parts per million. Here we really have a threat and a problem which this department, on account of its staff, is so outstandingly equipped to contend with. They are men who are highly motivated in their actions when they investigate these problems in various places. Often they are problems requiring truly superhuman exertion and thought.

With a view to the damage I have just mentioned to the House, I also want to mention here the damage caused annually by the destruction of surface soil. It is calculated that 363 million metric tons of surface soil are carried away by erosion annually. It is of interest to note that since 1946 the State has made as much as R63 million available to farmers for the construction of soil conservation works. It can therefore be said without hesitation that in spite of all these reverses, before which it is powerless in many cases, the department has not for one moment flinched from tackling a task which continually demands new methods and a new approach. But more active attention will possibly have to be given, to an increasing extent, to the question of control of flood plains, i.e. in the catchment areas of specific rivers. Then, too, we shall have to give attention to the protection of catchment areas for dams. We know that great heights have already been achieved in this regard and yet it is still a vital demand made on us that we should continue with that process. Sir, there are also flood protection works, and here I have in mind the lower Sundays River valley where the crumbling away of the bank of the river has proceeded apace, to such an extent that it has endangered the properties of the riparian farmers because those banks have been washed clean by these mighty flood-waters. I wonder whether we could not provide those banks with more protection through the application of erosion-resistant material. But, Sir, I also have in mind flood control and storage dams by means of which the run-off in the catchment areas of certain rivers will be delayed, and here I put the question—the hon. the Minister has already replied to it in part—whether we should not perhaps give attention to the construction of more dams with a view to flood control. Then, too, there remains the aspect of water research in regard to which I should like to exchange a few ideas. We know that the commission appointed to investigate the water affairs of the Republic made certain recommendations such as long-term planning, water management for better utilization, and in addition, research with the aim of acquiring knowledge with a view to the prevention of water crises by means of, inter alia, accurate weather forecasts are concerned, there is a large area that is unexplored. The report of the commission to which I have just referred, makes mention of weather forecasts of up to a year, in order to warn people in a particular area in time to take the necessary precautions. Sir, while I am speaking about warnings of approaching floods, I also want to ask whether better co-ordination could not be effected between the seven recognized research bodies that exist at present, each of which make of this a specialized field, such as the Department of Water Affairs itself, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, which does research in this connection, the Department of Forestry, which has its research project in this regard, the Weather Bureau, The Geological Survey Department and the National Institute for Water Research and certain universities. I wonder whether all these efforts could not perhaps be co-ordinated in a more effective way in order to be able to give more effective warning of approaching floods, and the extent of such floods, to the inhabitants of a particular area.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell my colleagues the hon. members for Fauresmith and De Aar that although the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam is situated in their constituencies, the major part of that water is being utilized in my constituency. Sir, when we talk about disasters that have hit our community, hon. members will concede that the constituency of Prieska is one of the constituencies that was hit hardest by the recent flood disaster. It is almost impossible for one to describe what happened in that paint of my constituency situated along the four rivers running through my constituency. These four rivers, the Vaal, the Modder, the Riet and the Orange, extend over a distance of 880 km in my constituency. More than 800 riparian owners were affected by this flood, and only a person who has knowledge of the damage caused there can form an idea of how great the need of these people is. The damage caused by the flood is such that the land that was lost can never be reclaimed again. But we want to express our sincere appreciation to the department and the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, as well as the Minister of Agriculture, for the assistance rendered by them to these people in the flood disaster which struck all over our country and in my constituency in particular. If we consider that the Government and the Minister of Agriculture made available R10 million for loans and R6 million for subsidies and that in all, including the assistance rendered by the Minister of Water Affairs, an amount of almost R20 million was made available, then I think that we have a department and a Government which have the greatest sympathy for our people who have suffered such a heavy blow at the hands of fate. What we find gratifying is that this work was done in a very short while, that it was done in a time when we, at any rate, did not expect it to be possible. We have the assurance that 90% of these farmers are going to be back in full production before the end of this year. We want to express our appreciation, and I am doing so on behalf of my farmers, on behalf of all of them, irrespective of whether they are N.P. or U.P. supporters. I think they have great appreciation for what was done, and by way of the result of the polling in my constituency it showed what great confidence it has in our Minister of Water Affairs. I know the Leader of the Opposition paid a visit to my constituency just after the floods, and I do not blame him for what he said, but I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that the information supplied to him was totally wrong. And after the evening when he spoke on the strength of that information that had been supplied to him, twice as many United Party people decided to vote for the National Party as would otherwise have been the case. We have people who have appreciation, and one cannot persuade them to forget about things they see with their own eyes and feel with their bodies. It is certain that in recent years the people, whoever they may be, have received the best treatment from the National Party Government and from our Minister who are concerned with their interests along our rivers which are part of our irrigation schemes. Sir, I had the opportunity of accompanying the Minister on a visit to all the flood areas, and I find it amazing that it has been possible to do the work that has already been done in such a short while.

But I want to discuss another matter. I want to ask the Minister of Water Affairs to look into certain conditions in my constituency, a matter which we did discuss briefly before. I want to express my sincere thanks to the Minister for still being willing, after this work that has been done recently, to listen to people and their complaints, which are still cropping up occasionally, and for solving them in this manner, to the great satisfaction of our community. Sir, what I want to refer to is the Buchuberg Scheme, Douglas and Bucklands and the Riet River. The Buchuberg Scheme came into being in a time of poverty and distress, and although rehabilitation has taken place in recent years and economic units have been established to a large extent, there is still a great deal to be done for these people. When I think of the Vaal River, I call to mind that disaster which hit them, which assumed vast proportions, and the fact that they, too, are people who started irrigation in the previous century, which was unplanned. The position is the same at the Riet River, and when I think of Bucklands, I recall that those were the first canals which were built in the previous century, that irrigation only developed there after 1913, that this part of our irrigation was unplanned and that over the years they have simply had to cany on this way in order to eke out a precarious livelihood. Sir, I hesitate to say this, but over the years, very little has in my opinion been done for these parts, and I do not want to blame anybody for it. I do not think it is fair that we should drag these people with their small-holdings and their poverty along with us in the future. I do not think we should go on breeding poverty. On the contrary, I believe that a great deal can be done in this regard. At Bucklands, for instance, there are owners who only have eight morgen of irrigation land. However, some of them even have only six morgen, whilst others do at least have nine or ten morgen. However, only a short distance away—from Bucklands one can almost throw a stone there—there are 600 morgen that have been set aside for development. Under these circumstances I think it is fair that we should look after the interests of those owners and help them to obtain economic units. Furthermore, conditions developed in such a way that it was specifically over the past years that these people with their small units experienced their worst setbacks owing to a shortage of water for irrigation purposes. At peak times, when their products had to be irrigated, there was no water and they lost the crops they would otherwise in fact have been able to harvest.

I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister and his department. I know that they will react favourably to it, but I want to emphasize it once again. There is no point in our undertaking further projects unless we ensure that the existing schemes are stabilized, that they receive sufficient water and that the owners have land which is large enough in order that they may make a decent living from it. I have every confidence in the hon. the Minister and his department that are doing so much for us. It is with confidence that I want to express the hope that they will do the necessary planning in respect of these people so that they and their children will be able to enter the future in a spirit of cheerfulness.

Mr. Chairman, I have heard from the hon. the Minister the guidelines which have been laid down for determining the priority of irrigation schemes, but I should like to refer to one of them in particular. The hon. the Minister has said that if a storage dam will not fulfil a multi-purpose, it will go down in the priority list. He also pointed out that if such a storage dam is to be built in a high rainfall area, it will also lose its place on the priority list. Bearing this in mind, I realize that we on the Natal South Coast would lose out with our dam on the Umzimkulu River. This river is one of the largest uncommitted rivers in South Africa.

Although I am not going to argue about these guidelines, I should like to say that I doubt whether in the South Africa of tomorrow any dam will be a single-purpose dam no matter where it is built. With our shrinking amount of land and our growing population I cannot see that any dam will not be utilized by all our people—the farmer for irrigation, the town people for consumption and the industrialist for the generation of power—apart from its recreational value and the breeding of fish. I should like to point out that it does not mean that people who live in high rainfall areas are naturally resistant to droughts. I would say that the Natal South Coast is probably one of the areas in South Africa which is the most vulnerable to drought. In the beginning of this year and up to June we had some of the best rains which we have ever had. The Umzimkulu River was in full spate for about three weeks at times and the water ran over 30 feet deep. That water has now flowed into the sea and we have had no rain since June. At the moment they are in the throes of a very severe drought, so severe that we are having cane fires all over the area, bananas are dying and vegetables are wilting. The Bantu people particularly are severely pressed for water. In the Bantu areas in this particular constituency the only drinking water available to these people are the bottles of water which they take home at night from work. The more fortunate ones are able to fill drums of water at night if they are able to borrow their employers’ trucks. For this reason the water corporation of Fort Shepstone, seeing that the chances of our getting a dam are very slim, felt that they could not wait to augment the water supply there which is completely inadequate. At the moment they are getting water from the very heavily silted Gilbert Eyles Dam on the Umzimkulwana River, a tributary of the Umzimkulu River. Water is also obtained from the pumps which pump water from the Umzimkulu River itself. As the hon. the Minister knows they have discussed ways and means of augmenting this supply and are putting more pumps on the Umzimkulu River. Since 1972 they have been going ahead with plans, surveys and consultations with engineers as to the best way this scheme can be implemented. They are now ready to swing into action to get this scheme going. I know that the local authorities are entitled to a statutory subsidy of 20% on the work which is being done, but they are also entitled to an extra statutory subsidy provided the work is commenced after 26 June 1975. This is the problem. If the work is held back until next year, for practically another nine months, it becomes more expensive, as it must do because costs go up week by week. The problem will also not be solved and the position will become more serious all the time. The subsidy they will eventually get will also be worth so much less. I wonder whether I can ask the hon. the Minister to waive this time condition in exceptional circumstances such as these? There must be exceptions to every rule and I would ask him to give this matter his most sympathetic consideration.

I would like to point out to the hon. the Minister too that in the border areas, such as we are, adjacent to the Native areas, we are faced with this water problem among our Bantu people. I have been in this area for about 11 years and have seen the deterioration of the water supply in the Bantu area. Where there used to be copious fountains and water-holes in the bottoms of valleys there is nothing now. The population has grown to such an extent that the water is just not sufficient for the needs of the Bantu. If they did not get water from us in the White area these people would die. They have to come into the White area to work and the only drinking water they have is in the two bottles they take home at night. It saddens me to think that families consisting of old people and children have to spend an entire day on a supply of two bottles of drinking water. This is our responsibility. We have forced these people to live in the Native areas. They are not allowed to reside in the area where they work. We have sent them to an area where there is no water. I know that there are people who will say that it is their own fault; that these people are overpopulating the area and are overloading the resources, but there is nothing that they seem to be able to do about it. The responsibility still remains ours. I would like to know what we are going to do about it. I know that the hon. the Minister will probably say that it is the responsibility of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, but in this way we will simply be passing the buck from one department to another. But getting down to brass tacks, we are all involved. If these people cannot get water there, they must get it from elsewhere. It is not right that they should have to come into the White area to get their water. I would like the hon. the Minister to consider this problem.

In the Harding area, which is adjacent to the Port Shepstone area, the position is particularly serious. There is very little water available, because the Umzimkulwana River is a very short river and if there is no rain there is no water. The Umzimkulu River, flowing down from the Drakensberg Mountains, always has a plentiful supply of clean, pure water. I was wondering whether the department could not investigate the possibility of somehow diverting the waters of the Umzimkulu River to the Umzimkulwana River beyond Harding through the Ibisi cutting, or through that particular hill. It should not be difficult. I visualize a short tunnel, perhaps through a hill to obtain the right levels. A large quantity of water could be diverted through the Umzimkulwana River down through the Harding area to the Gilbert Eyles Dam, and then back to the Umzimkuilu at Port Shepstone. I would be very grateful if the hon. the Minister could bear this proposition in mind.

Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position to reply to the problems raised by the hon. member for South Coast. At the start of his speech I got the impression that our respective constituencies have quite a lot in common, particularly when the hon. member referred to the water that flows away and the drought that follows. I do think, though, that there is one very major difference between the two constituencies. Mine is certainly much “Natter” than that of the hon. member for South Coast.

Just a bunch of ostriches!

The hon. member talks about ostriches. I want to tell him that when one is irrigating in the evening in the Little Karoo, one has to be very careful if one is in an ostrich camp. One can be given a few kicks. After all, in April 1972, those hon. members were given a few good kicks.

The various items under the Vote “Water Affairs” not only give us an idea of the wide-ranging task of the department, but also give us an indication of the demands made on that department so as to be able to provide all sectors of the country with water. I believe that in comparison with the position two or three decades ago, these items are a clear indication of the expansion and development that has taken place in the field of water affairs. One could say that this department has developed from a Department of Irrigation into a full-fledged Department of Water Affairs, which budgeted for an amount of about R168 million this year. It is against this background that I am able to understand the policy of the department, namely to build multi-purpose dams or water schemes. However, I want to come back to what the hon. the Minister said last year during the discussion of this Vote. He said the following (Hansard, Vol. 44, col. 5921)—

Now it is true that there are many parts of our country which have to fall back virtually on agriculture alone for their growth, in other words, where it will not be very easy for industries to establish themselves and develop, and where it is virtually only agriculture which can provide that area with the necessary growth. Now it is true that I represent one of those areas in South Africa, namely the beautiful old Little Karoo. It is one of the oldest irrigation districts in our country. Perhaps it is not generally known as such, but this is true. One of the oldest concrete dams in South Africa is in that constituency. In addition, much has already been done by the Department of Water Affairs to dam up that irrigation water and direct it to the farms. I should certainly be very ungrateful if I were not to express my appreciation for this this afternoon. However I do not believe, either, that one should ever be satisfied in life. This area that I represent has an exceptionally low rainfall and it is essential for all the water in this area to be utilized to the full. We have the fine example of the Gamkaspoort Dam, which was brought into use at the end of 1969, received its first water in 1970 and since then has virtually remained full. It has stimulated development in that area reached by the irrigation water to a marked degree. I want to say this afternoon that if that dam had been built about 20 or 30 years ago, it would have been of immense significance for that area. I mention this because I am convinced that wastage of water does actually still take place in the Little Karoo. This is not because the farmers, the irrigators, waste that water, but because much of our irrigation water must still reach the farms by way of the river bed, and also because we have to do with unlined canals. For that reason I am grateful that the Department of Water Affairs is engaged in building linkage canals for the Kammanassie irrigation scheme in order to eliminate that wastage. However I believe that the ideal for that area is still to have an efficient canal system which would eliminate all wastage of water.

There is another matter I want to mention. When smaller water schemes are discussed, we are often told that they are uneconomic. I agree 100% with what the hon. the Minister said earlier this afternoon, namely that the infrastructure of water must be integrated into the economy of the country. I know too that we are struggling to get the necessary funds, but when we are dealing with the depopulation of the country areas—something we are in fact dealing with—I believe that we should do everything in our power to counteract it. I know that this is not the task of the Department of Water Affairs, but what I really want to ask is that more funds be made available to the department to allow smaller irrigation schemes to be carried out. It is a fact that the smaller irrigation schemes can mean higher production and a bigger income for the agriculturist. The permanent water supply he gets from the irrigation scheme means that he can employ more intensive agricultural methods and it offers him greater security for further expansion. It is difficult to calculate this kind of thing in terms of rand and cents, because there is always the moral values it creates, and this is not readily determinable. What I am really asking, therefore, is that we should not be so quick to write off a scheme as being uneconomic, particularly when we are dealing with the country areas that are struggling and are being depopulated. Where such an irrigation scheme exists, it keeps the young man who would like to farm, on the land. I am convinced that the water supply of the area I represent must be supplemented in one way or another. It is often said in my constituency that the Little Karoo should be supplied with water from the Orange River schemes. The hon. the Minister has already replied on that point this afternoon, but I should appreciate it if he were able, perhaps later this afternoon or tomorrow, to react to my request. I should be obliged if the hon. the Minister could give me an answer in this regard, because these requests often originate from places which, politically speaking, are not very well disposed towards me. I want to ask that we should have a comprehensive water plan for the Little Karoo. The hon. the Minister knows that region better than I do, but it is a fact that not a drop of water may be lost in that area. I feel we should have a water plan to integrate everything. Perhaps a commission could investigate all the possibilities in the area —for example the possibility that the water from the Outeniqua mountain range which runs to the sea could be redirected, in one way or another, to the Little Karoo, where there is fertile soil that could be utilized to very good effect in the interests of our entire country.

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with what was said by the previous speaker by saying that the constituencies in South-West Africa are, on the one hand, much drier and on the other hand, much “Natter” than the constituencies in the Republic of South Africa. In addition I want to associate myself with what hon. members have said here about research in the field of water. The other day I listened to a commentary from an entirely foreign source. It was said that when representatives of South Africa addressed scientific conferences on certain matters they were always listened to with interest. I have in mind, for example, the international commission on large dams and the International Association on Water Pollution Research. We are an authority in these spheres and the international scientists look up to South Africa’s representatives when they speak. There is also, for example, the conference of the World Meteorological Organization on precipitation in mountainous areas. I do not know whether this is the conference to which representatives were invited and then not given the opportunity to address the conference. I should like to hear from the Minister which of these international conferences we were not admitted to after having been invited. It is strange that where people actually look forward to the benefit of scientific research in South Africa and would like to listen to our people, there are people who want to play politics with water affairs and thereby harm themselves. There is also the Sarccus organization here in Africa which has a permanent committee on which South Africa, too, serves in connection with hydrological matters. That organization also arranges similar conferences which are looked forward to.

Before pointing out another aspect I should just like to congratulate the department on their annual report because it is very illuminating and contains many details. However, I just want to point out that there are certain matters in regard to which they do not supply any information in respect of South-West Africa. These are matters about which I should like to have more detail. On page 16 of the report there is a table, “the state of storage in regions”, in which no information concerning South-West Africa is furnished. On the same page there is a table, “the state of storage in the Republic’s major dams”, to which the same applies. I do not know whether I have overlooked it in the report. In table No. 3 on page 17, “evaporation losses from major dams”, as well, no direct reference is made to South-West Africa. I am aware that we do not have such big dams in South-West Africa as in the Republic, but on the other hand, on page 18 one finds the opposite. In table No. 5, “river-flow gauging stations opened”, South-West Africa is included. South-West Africa is also included in table 7, “evaporation stations opened”. I must take it that previously we had no evaporation statistics or stations in South-West Africa.

It is disappointing to hear about the difficulties experienced in data processing. In my opinion it is pointless to collect data if we are unable to derive benefit from it by processing it. The paragraph in connection with data processing concludes with the words—

To me this is the one disappointing aspect of this report. I make special reference to it because it is in contrast with all the other positive information in this report. On page 23 the following is also stated in regard to data processing—

More is said about this.

There is another matter to which I should also just like to refer, namely the integration of the Kuiseb and Omaruru Rivers and the water schemes that are involved. I cannot conceive that, after all the research we have done through the years, the Swakop River should be included here. On page 143, paragraph 181, of the report, mention is made of the Central Namib Regional Supply Scheme. I quote—

Reference is made in various paragraphs to the fact that money is being set aside for developments in the Swakop River. Elsewhere reference is again made to the Von Bach Dam which is also on the Swakop River. Apparently no distinction is drawn between various projects. As a result there is a degree of confusion. At which places on the Swakop River is work being done and why is the Swakop River not being integrated with the Kuiseb River and the Omaruru River? The geography of that area is well known and one knows what the problems are in regard to the Swakop River. Lower down in the river the difficulty arises that the water becomes brackish to such an extent that at certain places it is unusable. Investigations have shown that the formations intersected by the river are the true cause of the brackish water. In the ’fifties the water research division of the C.S.I.R. initiated research which included these aspects. Certain proposals were made then. However, after the administrative link-up with South-West Africa, nothing further took place in this regard. To me it is wrong, and really tragic, if I may call it that, that the water of the Omaruru River which is 80 miles further should now be brought in while the sources of the Swakop River, which runs into the sea and is not used now, are close at hand although they were in fact used previously by the people of Swakopmund.

I want to make mention of the highwater mark of the year. I mention it specifically because it was such an exceptional highwater mark in the history of the water affairs of South-West Africa. Arising out of a decision of the executive of the National Party, a theme for discussion at its annual congress was decided on, namely the future of water reserves in South Africa. We invited the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and he came and delivered an address to us in which he dealt with the entire matter. This was an exceptional highwater mark and I mention it specifically here because this elucidation by the Minister contained the master-plan for the entire South-West Africa. It was a master-plan in respect of which a great deal of research had been done. It must also have taken a lot of work to work out the plan. Before the German occupation of South-West Africa, or rather, the coming of the Whites to South-West Africa, if one could call it that, there were water springs at only a few places. The communities established themselves around these springs and that was why the populations of South-West Africa remained minimal in comparison with other areas in Africa. The populations of the various groups were therefore unable to grow as quickly as was the case after the establishment of the White population. A start was made with research, and large areas were opened up by the sinking of boreholes. It became possible for people to establish themselves in those areas. This expansion continued until the start of the ’fifties. It then became clear that if one did not take into account what the Minister called “this living asset” and did not make sufficient water available, the population increase in South-West Africa could reach a point of stagnation and famine, as is already the case elsewhere in Africa today. Because the future development of areas was not taken into account, one finds that today a state of famine prevails in various places throughout Africa and millions of people are dying. In South-West Africa we saw this problem coming. We first had a look at the various water sources in South-West Africa. A great deal of research in this regard had been done. The first major problem was that one had to contend with enormous capital expenditure, and for this reason the then Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, appointed the Odendaal Commission which made various recommendations in regard to water developments in South-West Africa. On occasion the hon. the Minister spoke on the theme of the local supply system which would have to be converted into a regional supply system and then into a national supply system, in which long-term planning would of course be of vital importance … [Time expired.]

The hon. members for Oudtshoorn and Etosha who have just spoken, both referred to their constituencies and poked some fun at my hon. friend, the hon. member for South Coast; they said their constituencies were somewhat “Natter” than his. I shall concede that their constituencies are somewhat “Natter” than mine too, but I want to put this question to them: Who would choose to go and live in Oudtshoorn or in Etosha if he has a chance of living in Pietermaritzburg?

†Sir, I do not believe that anybody in his right mind would choose to go and live in the constituency of either of those two hon. gentlemen and to be represented by people like those hon. gentlemen if they had the choice of living in the constituency of the hon. member for South Coast and of being represented by a person such as the hon. member himself or by his predecessor, or if they had the choice of living in Pietermaritzburg and of being represented by either of the members representing Pietermaritzburg here today.

Sir, the hon. member for Mooi River started this debate this afternoon by referring to Pietermaritzburg and the water problems that we are having in that area; he also referred to the problems which the hon. the Minister has with his pipeline and with his tunnels, and to the water which is going from Midmar Dam past Pietermaritzburg right down into the better parts of the constituency of the hon. member for Mooi River that is to say, the area between Pietermaritzburg and Durban. I want to talk with the hon. the Minister this afternoon about that particular area and the area which is supplied with water at the moment by the Pinetown regional water services corporation. I am sure that the hon. the Minister and the Secretary of his department are aware of the problems which face this particular organization. I wonder if he is aware of the problem which we face as consumers of water in that area. I want the hon. the Minister to understand that the area to which I am referring here is the area virtually from the boundaries of Pietermaritzburg to the boundaries of Durban, with the exception of Westville. I think that is the only local authority area which is not supplied with water by this water corporation. Sir, over the years this corporation has ticked along, and everything went fine until we had the tremendous development in the late 1960s, when all of a sudden they found that development expenditure rose from somewhere in the region of R70 000 a year to over R700 000 a year. In fact, in the five years after 1967 this particular corporation’s capital expenditure was over R6 million. It is anticipated that in the next four to five years this corporation will spend R13 million to R15 million on further development. Why is that happening, Sir? It is happening because of development, particularly because of industrialization, apart from the fact that this corporation is going to have to supply water to such places as Mariannhill, where I believe that the hon. the Minister of Planning has decided that he is going to site a large township for Coloureds. There will also, we hope, be a large settlement of Indians in that area who are also going to require water from this corporation. Sir, in northern Natal we are at the moment experiencing tremendous industrial growth and a tremendous settlement of population, but those local authorities up there—and this corporation is in the nature of being a local authority because it provides services—are getting assistance from this Government in one way or another, either in the form of subsidization of high interest rates, in the form of loans at low interest rates, or even in the form of direct grants to assist with the establishment of the necessary infrastructure, the supply of water, roads, etc., in that area. However, so far this particular corporation has only been able to get the amount of subsidy which is provided for in the Act, where the cost of water goes over a certain figure. It gets the statutory subsidy which applies thereto. I believe this hon. Minister must now look at this corporation and he must go further. I believe he should use his influence in the Cabinet to see what he can do to alleviate the situation in that area, because the people, the consumers—I am one and my hon. friend from Berea also happens to be a consumer—are being milked to pay for water. I believe this is the most expensive water in the country. It is even more expensive than the water of the hon. member for Etosha, and even more expensive than the water in Windhoek. I believe it is totally wrong that we should have an area, with the water supply and the potential we have in that area, in which water should, cost so much. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has any particular plans for that area, but I believe that during June, I think, of this year, there was a notice in the Gazette, or a proclamation, by which the Umgeni Water Board was established. At this stage we are not sure what exactly this means, nor are we sure what exactly is the intention of the hon. the Minister. Is this a water board which is being established along the lines of the Rand Water Board, which will now take over the reticulation of water in that particular area and supply water to users either in bulk or reticulate it as a local authority? I wonder whether the Minister can in his reply tell us what his plans are regarding this Umgeni Water Board which, as I say, was proclaimed during June. I wonder whether he will also indicate whether he has discussed this question or had negotiations with other local authorities, and whether they will also be taken care of by this Umgeni Water Board. I would like to know particularly whether it is also intended to take over the Hammarsdale scheme under this water board. The Hammersdale scheme at the moment, according to the last report of the department, has reduced itself only to an effluent treatment works. I refer to page 104 of the report of the hon. the Minister’s department, which states that sludge disposal facilities and sedimentation capacity were considerably improved during the year—this is for the year ended 31 March 1973—and that work proceeded on the construction of extensions in the planning of treatment methods. It then goes on to say that the water treatment has been disbanded. I believe that is being done at Umlaas Road now and we are getting purified water direct to Hammarsdale. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can give us some indication of the success or otherwise of these plans that were introduced in 1972 for the treatment of effluent and sludge at Hammarsdale, whether in fact they have been successful and whether he is satisfied that he can handle all the effluent from that area now, I believe it is the lack of facilities for the treatment of effluent which is hampering the further industrial development at Hammarsdale. The Department of Water Affairs is not prepared to supply any further water or to increase allocations of water to existing industries if there is going to be any further effluent for treatment because they are having problems with it. Now, Sir, while on this topic I also want to discuss briefly the question of the treatment of effluent from the Mpumalanga township at Hammarsdale, the Bantu township which has a population in excess of 40 000 people. I am not sure whether this falls under the control of his department or under the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. If the latter is the case, I will accept it. If not, I wonder whether the Minister can indicate to us whether he is satisfied with what is happening there; that what is being released into the Umlaas River does in fact comply with the provisions of his Act or whether something has to be done to improve the facilities which are provided there at the moment for the treatment of this effluent. In the couple of minutes that I have left I want to broach a completely different subject with the hon. the Minister and to refer to a report in yesterday’s Sunday Tribune regarding the development of certain mining enterprises in KwaZulu at Somkele just inland from Mtubatuba. The hon. the Minister indicated in his reply a little earlier that one of the reasons for the Orange River development scheme was to provide water for mines. In this report of the development of coal mines at Somkele it was stated that there is adequate water available. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg will probably excuse me if I do not react to his speech.

Please do not react to it!

All I know about his area, is that to me the name “Pietermaritzburg” has a very pleasant sound. I know too that it is an old historical place. I must add that in any case no name is more pleasing to my ear than “Keetmanshoop”. I am therefore unable to react to his speech, particularly since he raised matters concerning his constituency.

In navigating the calm waters of the discussion of the Water Affairs Vote, we see very clearly that the oarsmen and helmsman of that boat must be very competent. South Africa is a vast country with very little water, but although we are sitting here as representatives of all the constituencies in the country, we have had no attack on this department today. We know that fantastic progress has been made, particularly over the past few years, in the field of water conservation. In this regard I want to refer to our biggest waterworks and associate myself with what was said by the, hon. member for Prieska.

When the Verwoerd Dam was completed, we thought that the periods of flood in the lower Orange was something of the past. However we mere human beings saw our mighty Creator send a flood which was almost worse than all the previous floods over the past 50 years. A few of the farmers of the lower Orange fall within my constituency and I must thank the department for what they did for those farmers during this flood. As a son of that area I know only too well what these farmers have to go through during such floods and what awaits such a fanner when he surveys his lands and sees nothing but mud and sand there. Then he knows that for the next six months or even the next year, there will be nothing for him to harvest.

I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Prieska by saying that we can have another look at these riparian farmers. They farm on a small scale, but are hardy farmers who have been farming there for many years. We cannot take them away there, because they are at home there. Sometimes, however, there are times, as we have had again recently, when the State has had to assist them and has in fact assisted them very generously, but the problem cannot be solved by a mere granting of assistance in this way. I think the time has arrived for the circumstances of these people to be thoroughly investigated. The circumstances in which they find themselves were created at the start of the century and at this stage we can do nothing about them, unless we recreate that whole area to allow those people to make a better living.

As the hon. the Minister said, however, this great scheme did divert these floods to a large extent, otherwise they would have resulted in a much bigger disaster. I have in mind the regulation of the water of the Orange River in particular. I know from many years’ experience that these riparian owners sometimes have too much water, but for the greater part of the year water has not been available to them at the very times when they needed it the most. Now however the water is available to them at any time. When the harvest is in greatest need of water, the water is there. Perhaps we are not all in a position to grasp what this means to a small farmer in a very hot area who has to make his living from that soil, to have water at his disposal at the right time. In this respect this great scheme has brought about enormous improvements in this area.

The man at the helm of this department and his crew are the right people for the job. In these times they are engaged in erecting water monuments to themselves throughout the entire country. I do not believe that there is any other department that builds such visible monuments that will continue to stand in the centuries that lie ahead. Every few months we hear of the hon. the Minister announcing yet another new scheme. This very weekend I was once again amazed to read in the newspapers about the announcement of a new scheme in one of the driest parts of the North-West. Of course I am very strongly in favour of this. This area borders on my constituency and it therefore interests me greatly. Since the hon. member for Namaqualand is not here today, I want to express my sincere thanks for this, on his behalf, right away. It is really going to mean a great deal for that area. I now want to deal with my own area.

Recently the hon. the Minister announced a master plan for South-West Africa. It is an extremely ambitious plan which was doubtless preceded by much research. In this respect I want to praise those officials in particular who were concerned with working out this master plan for South-West Africa. One realizes, of course, that the execution of this plan is going to cost many millions of rand. However a start has to be made somewhere and one cannot start without a plan. One cannot build a house without a proper plan. I therefore want to convey my thanks on behalf of South-West Africa for the fine plan that has been announced. Together with this I also just want to mention that plans have already been worked out, particularly in respect of the homelands in South-West Africa. I may be wrong, but as I see the future, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister that these extensive plans, particularly those in respect of the homelands, be tackled in the not-too-distant future. As I see it, they should enjoy priority within the foreseeable future.

Even though all the requirements to develop an infrastructure for an area may be there, a start cannot be made before there is water. That is why it is so important for us in South-West Africa that these schemes that have been designed, particularly those in respect of the homelands, should be tackled within the not-too-distant future. To get closer to my own constituency, I have in mind the southernmost homeland, i.e. the Nama homeland, in particular. Here, too, in the lower reaches of the Fish River, there are possibilities which will have to be given earnest attention if we want to make this homeland viable. I should therefore like to plead in this regard, too, that if the plans have not yet been worked out, this should also be given much serious attention, in order that the homeland may become viable. I also want to point out that the department is engaged in research, with particular reference to subterranean water, but also with reference to desalination. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I made mention here earlier on of the principles of our party which we explained to Uncle Jim Fouché in the old days. I must say that, as far as the hon. the Minister is concerned, we have come much closer to one another since those days. Today we see eye to eye much more often than in those old days which I mentioned.

†I also wish to take up with the hon. the Minister the question of the 20 million people that can be settled in the Umgeni catchment area. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that I do not talk nonsense. When I say that that area has a potential population of 20 million people, I am quoting from a report by the Town and Regional Planning Commission of Natal, which reads quite distinctly:

Sustained by the Umgeni?

By the Umgeni catchment area.

I am sorry, but I differ.

Well, the hon. the Minister can quote his experts—I have my experts here to support the contention I have made. I would be interested to see how the hon. the Minister can come to the conclusion that it is not possible. While I was talking about the Umgeni, I asked the hon. the Minister to tell me what is going on with the Midmar tunnel, the tunnel that goes from the Midmar Dam …

I will reply to you now.

Thank you. The whole development of the Umgeni, the whole industrial area which is developing below Pietermaritzburg and in Pietermaritzburg itself depends on that tunnel and its efficient working.

May I then ask the hon. the Minister, in relation to the question of the sewage disposal into the basin of the Umgeni River, whether new standards with regard to effluents are not going to be required. It has been proved quite clearly now that normal purified effluent which is discharged into the river in terms of the standards set up by the department, is still capable of producing these algae blooms which render the water unfit for human consumption.

I want to know whether the hon. the Minister is thinking of a new treatment plant to be installed at sewage works, which will remove the phosphorous and the nitrogen. It can be done. It is being done in research institutes in South Africa and overseas. Those of us who went to the C.S.I.R. some years ago have a very clear recollection of drinking the water that had been through that process of purification. We saw it coming in as raw sewage. [Interjection.] Yes, that is why I am like I am. I am prepared to concede it. However, we saw that whole process taking place, and we saw the purified water coming out, drinkable, after being through the process.

It is called the Stander Plant.

That is right. The present director of that institute, Mr. Stander, who has been elected vice-president of an international organization, set up the whole project. I want to know whether the hon. the Minister regards the standards applicable to effluent from sewage treatment plants in this country today as being adequate to meet the need we have to prevent stored water, for instance in the dams of the Umgeni, from causing complications. The water is not actually polluted, because it is of a standard which meets the requirements of his department, but it is still of such a standard that it will cause these complications in the storage dams being built in those areas.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister one further question in relation to the Weather Modification Act which was passed by this House during last year. This Act is a dual Act because the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Transport worked on it in conjunction with each other. I wonder what has happened. We went to considerable lengths to study this matter. Some of us read a great deal of literature to prepare ourselves in order to be able to discuss with a modicum of intelligence a Weather Modification Bill which has since become an Act, and we have heard absolutely nothing about it. I would have thought that somewhere in the report of the Department some mention should have been made of what was going on, but this was not the case.

Herman has gone to New Orleans.

Herman will not find much in New Orleans.

The other question I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is that of research. This has now been taken over from his department by the Water Research Commission in regard to matters affecting catchment flow, vegetation control, etc. I know that the department has been doing this for many years at Cathedral Peak. To what conclusions have they come? As was reported in the Press the other day, the whole of the experimental area, the catchment area at Cathedral Peak has been burnt out. Has the whole purpose of the department’s experiment now been destroyed? What will the future of that control be? One of the basic reasons which led the hon. the Minister of Forestry to impose a condition on afforestation was to permit the Minister of Water Affairs to draw the maximum amount of water run-off from the catchment areas. I certainly should like to know from the hon. the Minister what conclusions he came to and what additional problems have arisen. Did any further problems emerge which will require research? The Water Research Commission is doing research into the matter of catchment control. The department did this for many years and I want to know what the outcome of their research has been. Will further research be required or will it merely be a continuation of the research which has been done in that particular area?

If we may just have a lighter moment in this debate, I should like to refer to something which appeared in the Annual Report of the Department of Water Affairs. I do not know whether women’s lib are going to take up this matter or not, but on page 53 of the report it is said that the department has made history in that “Miss A. M. Mouton, Assistant Engineer” was the first woman engineer on construction. I think that the department is being very ungallant to this lady engineer and that I should like to know is how she is getting on. Is she still with the department? I do not think it is kind to refer to her as an “Assistant Engineer”. Does that mean that she has to work sitting down, or what does it mean?

The other point I wish to make is that we have reached a peculiar situation in South Africa. Large quantities of water are stored in catchments or in dams and cannot be used because of brackish soil. Then there are other areas where you have to desalt the water in order to be able to irrigate the soil. I am not quite sure how this is going to work. Even at the cost of transporting water, is it not going to be easier to transport the water to certain areas rather than to go to all the expense of desalting the water for use in what appear to be the same areas? The hon. the Minister has said that the cost of bringing water to certain areas is prohibitive. In certain areas water has to be desalted to provide for expansion, in order to grow something and in order to irrigate or in order to provide for the crops. However, there surely must be a factor which will make the leading of water cheaper in the long run—it could be subsidized when it is considered to be in the national interest— rather than to resort to the process of desalting water. I believe that the desalting of water is one of the most expensive processes that it is possible to embark on. Where it can be done on a large scale, such as at the sea where the desalination can be undertaken by means of nuclear power, that might be in some sense an economic proposition if water cannot be found anywhere else. Certainly, we hear from other members from other areas, and particularly the drier areas, of the desalting of water for irrigation and other purposes, but I cannot see how this can possibly be done. I would welcome anything the hon. the Minister can tell me about that particular problem. It is always a cost-benefit analysis; how does this benefit the country and the people concerned in relation to the total cost to those people of buying that water from the Government or wilt the department make a gift of it or subsidize the provision of water to those people? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members who have taken part in the debate have brought various new aspects to the fore, and I should like to reply to them. I shall start with the hon. member for Benoni. He mentioned a matter which is very important for South Africa and also for the industrial areas, namely the permitting of the use of water and also the disposal of effluents. I can tell the hon. member that one needs two permits in an industrial area. Firstly, there is the permit which gives him the right to use water, and, secondly, there is the permit which tells him what he is to do with the water after he has used it. Our problem is the used water. The hon. member will know that every year no fewer than 400 new chemical compounds are added to those already known to the world. We also have a hand in that process. It is those brand-new compounds being added all the time that are giving us trouble. The main task of the Water Research Commission virtually consists of just paying special attention to such new compounds.

The hon. member referred to the question of eutrophication. I can tell the hon. member that a proper project is being carried out, a project on which we are spending a great deal for the very purpose of seeing how we can reduce the effluents in the run-off. Those are two separate phenomena. The run-off refers to the water flowing from the surface of the earth and landing in the dam, and the effluent refers to the water landing in the dam by way of a pipeline. Both may be equally dangerous. What we call eutrophication is the nitrogen and phosphates in the water. There are four dams where very extensive and also intensive research is being carried out in this regard at the moment, namely Rietvlei, Pienaarsrivier, Hartbeespoort and Roodeplaat. At these four dams research is being carried out by the Water Research Commission in order to see whether we may even have biological removal of those substances. In any case, I do not want to make a long story of this. I just want to tell the hon. member that this is our problem. It is no use acting precipitately as far as such a problem is concerned, for this is a complex problem. All we can say is that the Minister should keep this in mind and be as strict as he can. This is in fact what we are doing. I can tell the hon. member that we are controlling or monitoring more than 4 000 factories at the moment. It is a complex process for which we need many people. It is an expensive process which has to be looked after and watched and in connection with which standards have to be set.

Talking about standards, I may just add that in conjunction with the Bureau of Standards we are continually watching the position to see whether our standards are high enough. This reply also holds good for the hon. member for Mooi River. Standards which are high enough today may no longer be high enough in two years’ time. In other words, while one is trying on the one hand to prevent the evil, one should on the other hand also try to improve one’s knowledge and build that improved knowledge into the process. I can tell hon. members that tremendous pressure is continually being brought to bear in order to lower the standards. Hon. members will understand that if one forces factories to supply cleaner water, it will cost money. Actually, this costs millions of rand and some of the factories are simply saying that “if you are going to be even stricter, we shall have to close down because we cannot afford it”. Now, where to draw the line is a question of judgment. One could be so strict that certain factories would be forced to close down. In any case, in that regard we, with all the people we have at our disposal and with all the scientific knowledge available in South Africa and also outside South Africa, are trying to control the situation in say a way that it will not get out of hand. I hope it will never happen that it does get out of hand. We are ready to handle it. A few years ago we did not have enough people in our employ to be able to do this. Today we have 23 scientists in our employ, and I hope that we shall soon have many more. If we can, we shall employ more. It is not easy to get hold of these people, for these are specialized fields. Hon. members may rest assured that we are going out of our way to do what we can in order to control the problem of water pollution in this age of industrial development.

The hon. member for Somerset East spoke about the mineralization of Lake Mentz. This is true. A very interesting thing happened during the recent time of floods. One would have thought that since it rained so much the last waters, the tail waters, would be less polluted than the first waters. After all, the first waters of any flood wash everything clean. Apparently this did not happen in this case. Because of the tremendous accumulation of subterranean water, the seepage of water went on to such an extent that until quite recently the dams in the Eastern Cape still had an inflow of water with a very high mineral content. In other words, the process of mineralization continued. This teacher, us a lesson and gives us an insight into things which we are not always thinking about. When we see this, we wonder whether we are doing the right thing in certain circumstances. Here I am thinking of the dams we are building below our agricultural development schemes. If we go on spreading large quantities of fertilizer on the large areas we plough, fertilizer which subsequently flows back into our rivers, I think that in this process we are going to pollute more and more of our dams themselves. How one is to stop that, I do not know. It is a question of either the one or the other. It is a very interesting point.

As far as flood protection works are concerned, I want to tell the hon. member that it is not always cheap to build a flood-works. We build them and, to tell the truth, many of our large dams, such as the H.F. Verwoerd Dam, are dual-purpose dams. That dam is more than a dual-purpose dam. It not only holds water for human consumption, but also controls flood waters and does other things as well. Most of our large dams are therefore flood protection works in themselves. However, when we talk about the construction of cement structure, walls, etc., over a distance of miles, it is a question of cost. Some of these works are so expensive that one simply cannot afford them. However, I can give hon. members the assurance that where we can afford them, we build them. If a person wants to build his own flood-works on his farm, we can subsidize it. South Africa is a large country and therefore one cannot prevent all the damage that may be caused all over South Africa. Nature is mightier than man. This is all I can say to hon. members in that regard.

The hon. member also referred to flood warnings. This is true. We go out of our way to join the police, etc., in advising the existing organizations, irrigation boards and other bodies to have warning organizations along those big rivers which may cause problems as far as flood waters are concerned. Warning committees are also being appointed. We want to know that when such a warning has to be given, this will in fact be done. I also want to tell hon. members that it happened a while ago that we gave the warning and told the chairman of an irrigation board that he was to convey that warning to his people. He then told us that we were talking nonsense. He said: “My grandfather and my father and I have lived here and we have never been threatened by flood-waters.” When this did happen, they said it was our fault. Such instances occur, too.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Prieska that a great deal of damage was in fact done in the Buchuberg, Riet River and Bucklands area. The hon. member also referred to the small irrigation units. I have been there and I know that they are very small. He wanted to know whether we could not possibly enlarge these units. How does one enlarge them? One either buys the one unit so as to add it to another, or one develops the area if one has the money to do so. I just want to tell the hon. member that I know his problem. The land is there and we are going to see whether it will be possible for us to remedy the position by way of a development there. But we shall have to see, once we have received the report, whether or not this can be done. The hon. member and I cannot decide on it before we have received the report.

†The hon. member for South Coast referred to the Umzimkulu River and asked me whether it would be possible to divert the waters of the Umzimkulu into the Umzimkulwana. Sir, it all depends on the cost-benefit factor. If it is possible to divert the headwaters of the Umzimkulu to the Umzimkulwana, I think it is a suggestion which might be considered for the future. I do not know whether the department has any figures in this regard. At the moment I do not know whether this would in fact be possible. In any case, this is a matter which can be investigated, and I promise the hon. gentleman that we will look into the matter.

*The hon. member for Oudtshoorn referred to smaller schemes and asked us to build more smaller schemes. Yes, one could, build more smaller schemes if it were economic to do so. Many of these smaller schemes are not really economic. A point one can make in this regard is that if one were to build smaller ones all over the show, one would not have a decent-sized major scheme. That applies in this case as well. But the rule being applied is to see whether the cost-benefit ratio is correct. If that ratio is correct, then everything is possible. But our experience has been that the smaller the unit is, the greater the cost, relatively speaking, and that is why we are building larger units.

The hon. member wanted to know whether we could bring the waters of the Orange down to Oudtshoorn. Sir, I think hon. members will be astonished to hear from what areas all over South Africa we have received requests for the waters of the poor old Orange to be brought there. As far as Oudtshoorn is concerned, this matter has already been investigated, but if the hon. member would just take a look at the topography, he would know at once that the answer must be No, because it would be virtually impossible. I have discussed this before with people from Oudtshoorn; they are clever, as hon. members know, and they tell one that they called in a person who worked out everything and was of the opinion that water from the Orange River could in fact be brought there. Well, that may be the case, but our own people do not think this can be done. Then the hon. member asked us whether the water running down the Outeniqua mountain range towards the sea in the vicinity of George could not be brought back across the mountain to where it could be utilized again. The physical problem in the Outeniqua area is, of course, that it is a very deep terrain; topographically it is a very difficult terrain. There are few storage units, and the unit cost is exorbitant. Unfortunately there is a mountain between the two areas, and I do not know how one would be able to bring this small amount of water cheaply to the environs of Oudtshoorn by way of a large, expensive tunnel.

Then I just want to reply to a point raised here by the hon. member for Etosha. Some time ago we attended a congress on the hydrological decade. This congress was summoned after ten years of research carried out by all the countries of the world which had co-operated in studying hydrology. This was not a project in which specific countries had participated, but rather a pooling of knowledge after a period of years, and subsequently all countries were invited to the congress by two organizations, the World Meteorological Organization and UNESCO. We were also invited to Paris, by the Department of Foreign Affairs, to attend this congress. When we arrived there, some of the people of UNESCO objected to our presence and we were voted out, with the result that we could not take our seats. I just want to say that this is not a permanent organization. South Africa has always taken its seat on the permanent organizations, for it has always come forward with good achievements. We are sorry that this happened, because we think that South Africa has a contribution to make. Apart from that we can, in any case, make a much greater contribution to science than is the case with many of the countries which take their seats there, make a noise and cannot make any contribution. We are therefore sorry that this happened since we think that the loss is not on South Africa’s side, but on the side of those countries which had a hand in making it impossible for us to take our seats there.

The hon. member also asked me what our contribution was in connection with Sarccus, and what Sarccus was. It is an organization in Southern Africa which consists of various countries which co-operate in the technological sphere. South Africa has always made its contribution, and both the Department of Water Affairs and the Department of Forestry have always been able to make good contributions because of our position in Southern Africa.

The hon. member also referred, to the area in South-West Africa where the three rivers the Omaruru, the Kuiseb and the Swakop come together, and he wanted to know why we were not going to utilize the water of the Swakop for the mining development; we were taking water from the Kuiseb and bringing it over to the water of the Omaruru, while it was at the Swakop that the utilization was to take place. The reason why it is not being utilized, is because it is salty. In the lower reaches of its drainage area the water is salty. Unfortunately it is not true that in the lower reaches of the Swakop River in South-West we can use that water without desalinating it, and at the present moment the cost of doing that would be so high that it would not be economic to try it. It is for this reason that we have made the second best plan, and that is to bring in the water of the rivers situated nearby.

May I put a question? Was the possibility investigated in view of the fact that at one stage Swakopmund used water from the Swakop River for domestic purposes? Is it not possible to dilute the water of the Swakop River by the water obtained via the Omaruru River from the Kuiseb?

What we want to do now is to build a storage unit in the Swakop River, either above or below Von Bach, and to integrate the water. It is a question of the integration of the water of these three rivers. The hon. member will remember. After all, he knows that part of the world and has seen the pipelines and also the plan which we have for linking up the various rivers with one another. That is the plan for the future.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South asked me whether we were proceeding with the Umgeni Water Board. The idea is to establish a water authority—the Rand Water Board is of course such a water authority—to combine all the water interests from Pietermaritzburg down to Durban. The hon. member will know that in the past there was great controversy between Durban and Pinetown. With all the development taking place we have come to a stage where it is impossible to keep pace with the developments and to unscramble a scrambled egg if we do not have a central authority. Therefore we are establishing the Umgeni Water Board. The hon. gentleman also asked me about the Hammarsdale scheme.

May I put a question? Will the Umgeni Water Board take over and actually supply the water, or will it only control?

It will control the requirements of all the small local authorities and it will create, in areas of development, the possibility of having new developments and of course extensions of existing water schemes.

It will not become a supplier?

No, it will sell to the different authorities. It will be a central authority which will take over the responsibility of supplying water to all the parties in the area of the Umgeni water authority.

*The hon. member for Karas asked me whether we could help, whether we could look after, the small farmers in the Lower Orange River area, in the vicinity of Vioolsdrif. The answer to this is that the small farmers in the area south west of the Orange River also have the right to expect us to see how they are doing. The fact of the matter is that our attention is being taken up at the moment by other parts of the Orange scheme, and I want to put it to the hon. member that he can tell his people that in due course we shall also look specifically at their circumstances. Unfortunately I cannot tell him at this stage what this will mean. I do not know what the possibilities are there. However, we shall take a look at the position for what it may be worth.

The hon. member also referred to the South-West Africa water plan and asked us not to postpone it for too long. The answer to that is that we cannot postpone it for too long. If we postpone it for too long, shortages will develop and we cannot afford that

†The hon. member for Mooi River asked me whether it would be possible to lay a pipeline in the sea rather than over land to bring water from one point to another. Let me tell the hon. member that such a marine project would be much more expensive than a land project. I do not know who gave him the information to the effect that a marine pipeline would be cheaper. As far as we know, it is much more expensive and definitely not a proposition to entertain.

The hon. gentleman also referred to the algae blooms in the Midmar area. We do not only have this problem in the Midmar area; we also have it in the Hartebeespoort Dam, the Pienaars River Dam, in fact all over the place. That is why we are carrying out scientific investigations. There is a special project being undertaken to see how we can rid ourselves of this problem of algae blooms.

The hon. gentleman has also asked me what is happening about weather modification since we have been working on this now for two years. We have granted some permits in the Lowveld area. There are no great difficulties at the moment. There are many agents interested in weather modification in one particular spot only. However, in the future we may have a greater number of interested parties doing weather modification in South Africa. The two departments are, however, at the moment busy reconsidering the whole matter to see whether we are tackling this project in the correct way. The results of those deliberations will be brought to the attention of Parliament.

The hon. gentleman also asked me whether we were satisfied with the catchment control areas. He asked what we were doing and whether any progress could be reported. The fact is that the Department of Water Affairs and the Department of Forestry have done quite a bit of work in this field, but the hon. gentleman must understand that scientific research takes a long time. It is not possible to have all the answers within a year or two. We are satisfied, however, that we are keeping abreast of the problem. We are also satisfied that we shall be able to control the existing problem which gave rise to this law of control in the catchment areas.

The hon. gentleman went on to ask me whether we still had Miss Mouton with us. Yes, we still have Miss Mouton, and we also have another engineer, Miss Coetzee, with us. They are doing very well and we are highly satisfied. It is very interesting to know that more women are nowadays taking an interest in engineering and in the field of scientific research. We are very satisfied with both these young ladies and we hope they will stay with the department.

*I think this is all I have to say at this stage. I think I have replied to all the questions put by hon. members. If there is an hon. member who thinks that I have forgotten something, he only has to remind me of it.

Could the hon. the Minister reply to my question on the Midmar tunnel, please?

Yes, I beg your pardon. The Midmar tunnel is a short tunnel taking the water through to the lower course of the river. We know that the tunnel is a failure. The fact of the matter is that the tunnel and the pipe-line that were built on contract have not been such a great success. I concede that we were not satisfied that these were a success, but unfortunately I cannot tell the hon. member what the fault is. Chemical substances in the water could perhaps have had an effect. We do not know. However, the department is investigating this matter at the moment. The tunnel will probably have to be repaired. The pipe material has simply deteriorated. It often happens that the effluents borne in the pipes contain chemicals which weaken the walls of the pipes, with the result that the pipes break up into pieces as time goes by. Whether that happened in this case, I do not know. I cannot give the hon. member a reply off the cuff in this regard, but I want to tell him that I am indeed aware of this case.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 19, Loan Vote F and S.W.A. Vote No. 9.—“Forestry”:

Mr. Chairman, at the risk of being on my feet all afternoon, I would like to raise certain matters with the hon. the Minister as far as his Department of Forestry is concerned. I believe that it seldom happens in the history of an industry like the forest industry that the picture can change so completely in the space of a year as it has changed in this industry from this time last year to what it is today. I think hon. members who take an interest in the forest industry will remember that a year ago there was an open question in many people’s minds as to whether the forest industry was going to play as important a part in South Africa and in the world as was projected in the past. For this particular reason there was open talk about plastic paper, plastic packing materials and the use of all kinds of plastic materials which would render the timber industry, the packing material industry and all the industries relying on timber something almost of the past. People would have wondered in time to come what paper was. This was the story we heard a year or so ago. When one thinks of the tremendous change that has taken place in the situation of the oil industry in the world we have to understand and to accept that in South Africa, as throughout the world, timber and the products of timber, such as pulp, have become something of the utmost importance. I do not think that anywhere else that we can think of in a country like ours, which is developing so fast, has timber come to assume a greater importance. We are going to be desperately dependent on timber for so many of our products that we are going to require in the future. The question of plastic paper and all these kinds of things are ruled out merely on the question of the cost of the basic raw material, which is oil. I think that we, as people interested in the forest industry, and the department iself, which is a very considerable owner of plantations, have a great opportunity to rise to this challenge which is being presented to us. But there are a number of problems which I would like to deal with as I go along and I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to help us with certain of these.

I want to say straight out that the hon. the Minister himself is obviously in the closest possible touch with the timber growing industry. In this regard I want to mention the S.A. Timber Growers’ Association specifically. I think that what I am going to say here can hardly be any news to him. From the contacts that I have it is clear that he is in very close contact with them and that they appreciate that very much indeed. What is happening in our country is that there is a tremendously rising demand for paper products. As industrialization proceeds and the standard of living of our Bantu people particularly increases, paper is coming to assume a much more important place. I am not only thinking of paper as paper, but also of paper as cardboard, etc., used for packaging. This leads us as growers to look at ourselves and wonder whether we are going to be able to meet the need for timber in South Africa not only in the immediate future, but also and even more important, in the distant future. I wonder if we do not need a really new view of the timber industry and of our needs in view of the fact that the things we have counted upon to reduce the demand for timber are now not feasible any more. Even for the demand we projected last year we would hardly have had adequate timber resources. Today we find ourselves facing a staggering increase in the demand and one wonders whether South Africa, as it is today, is going to be able to meet this demand placed upon it by a constant rise in the cost of living of all the people of South Africa. I want to quote one example of this. This time last year the possibility of the replacement of timber pit props in the mining industry by concrete and all kinds of other substitutes which would have relieved the mines of the necessity of buying timber from our wattle growers, was openly being discussed.

It did not work.

That is correct; it was an absolute failure. The hon. member for Carletonville is quite correct. A realization has been brought upon us as timber growers that we not only have to meet the needs we had in the past; as the mines go deeper, the ratio of timber used to a ton of ore mined is getting higher, and we are going to require more timber. Looking at the future of the gold-mines this time last year, we accepted that they were dying mines, that they were mines that were to be phased out of production. We openly said that the gold-mining industiy would perhaps be a thing of the past within 20 or 25 years.

They are like old soldiers—they never die.

That is right. They never die; they have a new lease of life. Old mines we expected to close down because of the tremendous increase in price, seem to have come to life. This has changed the entire picture of the wattle industry and its participation in the goldmining industry. This is only another complicating factor. We had the problem before but here, where we expected a demand to taper off, it has in fact become greater. We are faced with this problem. The Wattle Growers’ Union has undertaken the export of wattle chips on a large scale to Japan. It is a considerable contract, something which is going to bring a lot of money into South Africa in the years that lie ahead. I know that the members of the Wattle Growers’ Union and of Satga as such are very pleased with the result of the contract they have undertaken because this has increased the price of timber, There is no question about this. However, I think we will have to look at our whole postulation of the timber industry and of the demand for timber. I think we are going to have to encourage our people to realize that every single stick of timber that is produced has to be marketed. There is so much timber today which just never reaches the market for various reasons. In the future that this industry is facing, even small branches that people used to throw away or burn for firewood, are going to be important. Every single stick is going to have a market value. We are going to have to market it if we want to meet the demand which we ourselves have created to a certain extent by undertaking the export of chips to Japan.

This brings me to the question of afforestation. The hon. the Minister, in the interests of water flow took it upon himself and his department to control the afforestation of river catchment areas. In my constituency, I want to tell the hon. the Minister, there is tremendous dissatisfaction because it appears that no permits are being issued. The reason for that appears to be that it has not yet been possible for the department to delimit the areas where afforestation is going to be possible and where it is going to have to be prohibited in terms of the water demand.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.