Mr. Chairman, at the outset, I should like to say a few words about the general efficiency of the Department as far as members of Parliament are concerned. I wish to compliment it, Sir, on the quality of the literature that is disseminated among members of Parliament. In regard to major irrigation schemes of one sort or another, we are kept very well informed. Sometimes the information we receive is rather depressing as we tend to find from a series of updated White Papers that schemes which were originally thought would cost a certain amount of money are sometimes costing twice or even three times as much as inflation takes its course. However, I do feel it is incumbent upon me to say a congratulatory word to the department, in the first instance in respect of these White Papers. In so doing, I should like to make one plea to the hon. the Minister. This is in regard to the annual report. I find it very interesting indeed and altogether very fascinating reading. The one quibble I have in this regard—and it is a minor one—is the fact that the report covers the period ended 31 March 1977. In fact, therefore, when we discuss the report, we are discussing what happened 14 months and more ago. To a certain extent, what we are discussing when we discuss the report is past history and past history of many months ago. In the case of many of the schemes we will be discussing the situation will have changed very considerably.

I want initially to discuss a scheme that has come to fruition to a large extent in that major amounts of money have been spent on it and in respect of which South africa has achieved a great deal. It is the biggest scheme of its kind that has ever been undertaken in South Africa. I refer to the Orange River scheme. In this scheme we have two major dams and many subsidiary and minor works. We have the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam and the P. K. le Roux Dam, both major operations. I think we have reached the stage now that these two dams have been built when it is incumbent upon us to ascertain what this scheme means for South Africa and what the future holds for this particular scheme. Furthermore, I think it is necessary for us to take stock of the position to see how we have achieved what we have achieved. I want to refer specifically to the fact that many questions were raised during the progress of this scheme, among others, whether or not the P. K. le Roux Dam should not have been built by private enterprise. It was finally decided that in view of the costs involved, the department could build the dam more cheaply, and the department proceeded to do just that. It built the dam most efficiently and a very successful construction operation it was. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister how he assesses this matter in retrospect. Did we make the right decision when it was decided that the department should build this dam itself? I raise this matter because obviously the question of whether this was the correct decision or not is going to influence our course of action in respect of future projects of this nature. Did we do the right thing? Can private enterprise undertake the construction of this kind of project more efficiently than the department can? I do not know. I may hold a private opinion in this regard but I should not like to express it because it would be offered without any real basis of knowledge and any real basis of facts behind it. I should like to know from the hon. Minister whether a cost evaluation of the Orange River scheme has been made.

The hon. the Minister knows probably as well as I do or better than I do that there has been much criticism of some of the planning surrounding the scheme. Once again, I am not in a position to say whether or not this criticism is justified. We hear all sorts of stories. There have been Press reports to the effect that much of the land that was put down as potential irrigable land in terms of the original scheme can no longer be considered to be good irrigation land and that the scheme has to be altered in many of its facets. It is quite inevitable, of course that the planning of a project of this nature cannot be one hundred per cent perfect; one is unable to allow for every eventuality. However, I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s opinion in regard to the possible further progress of this scheme. Are we going to be able to proceed with the schemes that were first envisaged when the project was planned initially? I ask this because, obviously, once a project of this nature has been completed, other calls are made on the water that has been collected in these dams. A minor thought that comes to mind in this regard is that in regard to certain of the agricultural projects in the Ciskei I believe that an official request has been made to the department for water. I am referring particularly to the project at Tyefu which is associated with the Glenmore project in the Ciskei homeland. They have said that it will be impossible for them to carry out any meaningful agricultural development in that area unless they have water from the Orange River scheme. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether it is going to be possible for him to supply this water. I also want to make the plea that if we are in earnest about developing the potential of our homelands—I think we are all well aware of the inefficiency of much of the peasant farming we see in many of our homeland areas—the department should give the necessary encouragement to schemes of this nature which are praiseworthy schemes and which are designed to get away from incompetent peasant farming operations. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister knows anything about the Tyefu scheme. I myself went over another scheme, the Keiskamma irrigation scheme, just the other day and I found it very impressive indeed in that there one sees homeland farming land being used effectively. I am afraid that this is not something that one sees very often. For the most part, peasant farming operations are inefficient and are not very productive. My question to the hon. the Minister is therefore: What is the position in regard to the supply of water to the Ciskei? Are we going to be able to supply it?

I should also like the hon. the Minister to give us some sort of time scale in respect of the infrastructure surrounding the whole scheme. A number of years are obviously going to elapse before the full potential of this scheme is ultimately realized. We should be pleased if the hon. the Minister could give us some idea of this time scale which we have seen to some extent in the documents before us, particularly in view of the capital difficulties we are experiencing at the moment. The capital difficulties as far as this department is concerned, are considerable. We have noticed that many projects have had to be delayed. One of these, incidentally, is the Pongolapoort canal system. I should not like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the Pongola Dam should finally be written off as the mistake it undoubtedly was. I think we are all aware now of the fact that that project should not have been built. Perhaps it stood a little too high on our list of priorities, even if we did decide to build it ultimately. But if we had known then what we know now—and I admit that it is easy to be knowledgeable in retrospect—we would not have commenced that scheme. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could comment on this dam. I do not know whether as yet we have obtained permission from the Swazi Government to push water up into Swaziland itself. At the moment, however, we have a major undertaking here which, although not standing idle, is not being used to anywhere near its potential extent. I should really like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he thinks that it has any potential at all. I should like to know whether it is worthwhile pursuing these operations or whether we should cut our losses right now and say that we are not going to spend any more money on it; whether we should put it on a list indicating that we have deferred further work on it or whether we should leave it alone and go on to more important projects.

I shall reply to that.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member who has just resumed his seat said at the end of his speech. We shall appreciate it very much if the hon. the Minister will give us his comments on that and inform us to what extent progress has been made with the negotiations with the Swaziland Government and whether there are alternative solutions to the problems which arose there. All of us are sorry to hear that the capital which was spent there is being left unutilized for such a considerable time, but we should not like to accept that there is no solution to the problem.

It is pleasant for me to say that we received the annual report of the department with a great deal of appreciation and that it is a report which, in my opinion, also reflects the quality and thoroughness of the work of the Department of Water Affairs. We want to congratulate the hon. the Minister, the Secretary, Dr. Kriel, and the responsible officials most sincerely on the report. As regards our co-operation with the Secretary and the department, the hon. the Minister has, of course, a very sympathetic group of M.Ps., but we want to concede that we have always received excellent co-operation and very sympathetic treatment from the department, especially from the Secretary for Water Affairs. It is probably no easy task these days to eliminate the problems and to have the undertakings in which they are engaged running smoothly at all times. There is the factor of tremendous cost increases which has virtually become out of control in recent years, particularly in the engineering industry. In addition the department also has to contend with unforeseen circumstances, for instance poor weather conditions, flood damage and geologic faults at the places where they have to work. All of these things are factors which constitute a special challenge to the department and which do not diminish their problems.

When we look at the projects of the department and at their achievements over the years, one is really proud of and grateful for the fact that they have brought about so many things virtually unnoticed. When I came here to Parliament, the idea of the possible realization of an Orange River project was still being advocated. At that time the hon. member for Moorreesburg came to Parliament and started talking about a dam on the Berg River, water provision to the West Coast, etc. Without any big headlines in the newspapers and without a great fuss, many of these projects were not only given shape but implemented over the years. If one sees the P. K. le Roux Dam and the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam today, it is difficult to realize that these were projects which were planned and implemented over a period of a little more than a decade. This is also the case with the Boland water project. One is amazed to see with what competence the department is tunnelling through the Boland mountains one after the other and building tunnels in order to carry out projects which seemed virtually impossible a few years ago. We are really proud of these things and we are truly grateful for the fact that there has been no hesitation in accepting the challenges posed by these major schemes. I need go no further. There are other parts of the country in which proof is to be found of the many large and imaginative projects which have been launched and which are under construction at this stage.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, I feel it is fitting to take cognizance of these things today and to express our gratitude, not only to the highest officials of the department, but also to the engineers, foremen and ordinary workers who are doing pioneer work under very difficult circumstances here in the heart of our mountains.

When we consult the annual report of the department, we see that in the course of the year a few people even lost their lives at these construction works. Even by taking every precaution it is impossible for one to eliminate this altogether. I am of the opinion, however, that we must appreciate the fact that there are people who sacrifice their lives in this process in order to bring about these things. I think that is why it is a very good thing for us not only to take cognizance of these achievements at a high level, but also to express our appreciation to those people who are involved in doing the ordinary construction work on the sites. I want to make special mention of the fact that some of our non-Whites, the Coloureds and the Bantu workers, are making a tremendous contribution. It is mostly these people who are involved in accidents at those works, and let us bear in mind, and also take into account in our approach and perspective, the fact that they always make a major contribution to the development of South Africa.

On the front page of the report of the department we have a fine photograph of the P. K. le Roux Dam. It impresses one not only as a fine photograph, but one is also impressed by the fact that today we in South Africa are able to have a project of this kind carried out by our own department and our own engineers. One is grateful for the fact that we have progressed this far. I feel that we should also express our gratitude to our universities which produce the men who are able to do this work today. This takes place in co-operation with the Government and the Public Service Commission which make the bursaries available. The department is responsible for the planning, but we must also express our appreciation to those bodies for the work they do.

There is just one other matter which I should like to mention before I resume my seat and which is an important consideration in our planning for the future. We are aware of the fact that the Department of Water Affairs is always looking ahead. If one looks at the projections concerning our population growth and the water requirements resulting therefrom, one realizes that one is dealing with a department which will never be able to rest on its laurels. The department must always remain somewhat uneasy and concerned whilst engaging itself in planning future water resources. I do not want to say anything in this regard, but in view of the fact that there has to be constant planning I want to mention for consideration—and I know the hon. the Minister always has this in mind— that we should always endeavour in our planning, because of the limited quantity of arable agricultural land in South Africa, to submerge the smallest possible quantity of arable agricultural land in the process.

I recall that I was on an aircraft on a certain occasion, and while we were flying over the Boland the late Mr. Ninham Shand said to the late Dr. Dönges, “Please look over there. That is where we want to construct the Misverstand Dam.” Dr. Dönges replied, “Mr. Shand, you must show us areas where we shall not be submerging good agricultural land and where we shall not have to pay such large amounts to purchase land.” This is basically correct. And that is why, in order to be practical, I want to say that I hope that before the wall of the Misverstand Dam is raised—the prospect of this being done has been held out—the department will investigate other alternatives. That water may possibly be stored by increasing the height of the wall of the Voëlvlei Dam.

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Piketberg in his tribute and expression of thanks to the hon. the Minister and Dr. Kriel for the commendable work which they are accomplishing as two very high-ranking persons in the department together with their officials. I want to confirm that it is a great pleasure to co-operate, hold discussions and discuss problems with this Minister, Dr. Kriel and their officials.

Speaking of problems, Sir, it is a fact that in a developing world, and also in South Africa, one gradually becomes so entangled in dealing with and seeking for answers to problems, that after a while one frequently does not notice the good things in life. Since we have so many beautiful rivers in South Africa which one can become lyrical about, I went and paged through the work Riviere van Suid-Afrika—this is by T. C. Robertson, the veteran journalist and naturalist—in which he gives a very brief description of the three most important rivers in South Africa. I am going to quote from this work for a minute or so. The Orange—

The Tugela—

The busiest river, the Vaal—

Mr. Chairman, if we take this kind of view of the beauty and the apparently—I say apparently—abundant waters of these three largest rivers of South Africa, then it is disconcerting that a great authority said not long ago: “If one had to put together all the floods, all the converging waters of all the rivers of the Republic of South Africa, then one only has double the quantity of water of a river like the Zambezi.” Sir, that is why it is essential and that is why it will probably also happen this afternoon that we will take preventive measures and consider possible methods which will be used in future and will have to be used in order to use the limited water resources of South Africa as carefully and as well and as economically as possible so that water will not in future be a limiting factor for South Africa as a young and growing country. That is why I want to ask the hon. the Minister this afternoon—I have spoken about this in the past and I should like to refer to it again briefly—whether he is satisfied that adequate discussions and negotiations were being held between our Government and the neighbouring states. More and more Bantu homelands will become independent in future and waters which flow between them and us will be known as international waters. Is the hon. the Minister satisfied that discussions and agreements in this regard between the Republic of South Africa and those neighbouring states are proceeding satisfactorily? Will the international water regulations which were drawn up in 1966 at Helsinki offer us a guarantee in future as regards these independent young states if they might want to become capricious? Will they be bound by these agreements which are made between them and us, and will be able to count on them?

In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to deal specifically with a problem from my own constituency. It is a problem which I foresee assuming greater proportions in South Africa with its rapid development in future. About seven or eight years ago the Rand Water Board imposed certain requirements on my town, Meyerton, which had developed into a rapidly-growing town, as regards their sewerage system and water purification works. The Rand Water Board told our town: “You must comply with our requirements otherwise all future expansion in your area will be frozen.” Mr. Chairman, you will agree with me that no sensible person will prefer freezing and stagnation to progress and expansion. The Meyerton Town Council decided to comply with the requirements, viz. to build the sewage and purification works. In 1972 the costs would have been R3¼ million. This capital could have been borrowed at 8½% interest. After careful consideration and planning the work was begun and when it was finally completed in 1977, the cost had increased to R5,6 million whilst the interest rate of the loan capital had increased from 8½% to 13%. At the same time we were experiencing an economic recession in South Africa. The expansion which we foresaw, did not take place as we wished and in actual fact it amounted to the tremendous problem today of 2 000 taxpayers in the small town having to shoulder the burden of R5,6 million. This means that after an occupier of an erf has paid his rates his water and electricity consumption he must pay R20 per month in sewerage fees. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that as far as pensioners and young married couples are concerned, it has become almost impossible to keep up at that high cost and make a living in Meyerton.

Sir, that is why I should like to thank the hon. the Minister and his Secretary and the department very much for the sympathetic ear which they have already given when I personally made request in connection with this problem. Since the municipality of Meyerton, however, buys this water from the Rand Water Board and very little of this water is actually wasted, because it is put back into the Vaal River as purified water, I want to ask whether the Water Act cannot in future be considered in such a way that a sewerage purification works would also be considered as a waterworks so that it may qualify in some way or other for assistance from the State, whether by way of a subsidy or interest subsidy or whatever the hon. the Minister and his department may think fit.

With the tremendous expansion of housing and establishment of industries which has been concentrated in certain growth points, local authorities with their limited sources of income are no longer able to make provision for the ever increasing demand for essential services such as water, electricity and sewage. Local governments, as a third tier of government, play a tremendous part in building up towns and cities. And since it will become more of a problem in future with the development of South Africa, I want to ask very specifically this afternoon whether the hon. the Minister and his department will take another look at this problem of Meyerton and come to the aid of our people in some way.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest something to the hon. member for Meyerton who raised a local problem here. I wonder if it is not possible for that town council to resell the purified water to the department in order to obtain the necessary money to cover those expenses.

†Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove raised the matter of the Makatini Flats Scheme at Pongolapoort, and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to make a clear statement this afternoon in this regard. It is something about which one hears all sorts of stories. One hears that the dam cannot be filled because it would result in the flooding of half of Swaziland, and similar stories. I would like the hon. the Minister to make a statement on it from this point of view, Sir. When we had the Cedara open day this year, I had an opportunity of speaking to one of the members of the staff at Cedara who had been stationed at the agricultural research station at Makatini. I asked him what the potential of that area was, and he said it was absolutely immense; that there was an absolutely fantastic potential in that area for development.

Why do you not tell the newspapers that?

Unfortunately, the newspapers do not ask me those sort of questions. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to make a statement in this regard because of the amount of money that is being spent there. I think that something like R35 million is being spent there. The public are today becoming increasingly critical of money that is being spent on farmers’ concerns and I think every hon. member here who represents a rural constituency will agree with me. The public are now looking sideways at money that is being spent in the interests and to the advantage of farmers. And where we have an amount of money like this over which there hangs a question mark, I think it is very important that the hon. the Minister should give us some reassurance.

There has been an interdepartmental committee appointed in regard to this. It is not just the Department of Agricultural Technical Services that is working on it. The hon. the Minister’s own department has been involved in the planning of that whole area. And I think it would pay us very handsomely indeed if the hon. the Minister could tell us something about that this afternoon.

The hon. member for Meyerton referred to the Tugela River in his quotation as a big brute of a river that tears through Natal. I want however to tell the hon. the Minister that the Umgeni River in Natal is four or five times more important than the Tugela. Half the total population of Natal today depend on the Umgeni River, and this river has been developed to almost its maximum extent. I mention this from the point of view that somewhere or other, sooner or later, the department, together with the Government and the Department of Planning and the Environment will have to decide whether it is cheaper and easier to move people to water or water to people. At present it is easier to move the water to the people, but we are building all the easier dams that can be built. The cheaper catchments are being developed at an escalating pace today, but when are we going to run into the problem when it will actually be easier to take the people to the water than to take the water to the people? In this regard I want to refer to the challenge that the department faces. We know that by the end of this century every drop of water in South Africa is going to be spoken for and we are going to be forced to resort to the use of recycled water and that kind of thing to provide for our population. I think we are lucky, and I agree with what hon. members have said, in that this department is a bold, innovative department. It is a very good engineering department. It tackles schemes which are increasingly complex. We have some White Papers to which I shall refer to later, for instance, P of 1978, D of 1978, the Usutu River Scheme, and E of 1978. These schemes are involving us in countless millions of rands of expenditure. Sir, I think the Department is expanding its thinking. When I came to Parliament we had hardly started on this phase of its development. Today we are dealing with a Department which is wide-awake. I would also like to pay my tribute to Dr. Kriel, the Secretary of the Department. He is a person who is internationally recognized. When we were in Teheran some time ago, we met him there as he was attending the conference on large dams. I think he is one of the vice-presidents of one of the departments or bodies relating to that particular conference. He is a person who has achieved international recognition for South Africa.

As far as the particular planning of this sort of thing is concerned, we are in good hands. A plan like the Drakensberg pumped storage scheme is not a new idea in the world. There is one in Lake Meade in the United States where water is pumped at times of low electricity demand and therefore at low tariffs. It is stored and used to generate power at peak demand. The effect of this is to save probably an entire new power station. Simply by meeting the morning and evening peaks by means of pumped storage, one saves oneself the cost of an entire new power plant which would be running only at those particular peaks. This is the sort of thing which to my mind is terribly important; it is an interdepartmental, inter-disciplinary concept which our Department is now beginning to implement.

In reading through the various White Papers I notice that changes in plans take place. In regard to the dam which is being used for the storage of water in this pumped storage scheme, it was intended that certain material should be used for the fill of the wall but it was found that the only suitable material, as planned, was some 45 kilometres away. The Department was able to change the plans in order to utilize a local sandstone which involved a haul of only three kilometres. But, Sir, the whole design of the dam had to be changed to accommodate that particular circumstance. I do not know where this is reflected in the White Papers or reports that were laid before Parliament. One of the things I hope to deal with in the course of this afternoon is the way in which White Papers are tabled because changes take place and there are escalations of costs. I myself are concerned and we as members of Parliament are concerned about this Department—how it is being run and how we are voting the money. It happens on several occasions.

There is an example in one of these White Papers where two amounts of R92 000 each are included for contingencies. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if he could tell us what conclusions exactly we are supposed to draw from the White Papers which are laid before Parliament. I take a special interest in these things; I read through them. I have read through every one except the one in regard to Soutpansberg because I could not get through that one in time. May I add that one of the problems we have had this year is the fact that these were tabled only a short while before the Vote came up for discussion.

What about the one in regard to Mooi River?

There was no White Paper on it this year but then the Mooi River scheme is not the one on the hon. the Minister’s mind: It is always the scheme in the Transvaal that is on his mind, never the one in my constituency.

[Inaudible.]

Well, Mooi River is such a nice place we cannot afford to put it under water. The land is far too valuable, and there are far too many good farmers there.

The problem we are confronted with, is to be able to go through these reports. The Select Committee that met this morning, is charged with going through those reports and then asking the Secretary questions and informing themselves as to what it is all about. The ideal situation would be to have a period of two weeks before that Select Committee meets so that members who wish to follow up queries can ask the Minister questions in the House in order to enable them to understand any particular problems the Department might have before we come to this Committee to discuss the Vote of Water Affairs, which I hope will be done next year. I make a very earnest plea to the hon. the Minister and the Secretary to do whatever they can to try to expedite the tabling of the White Papers. I want to say something more about White Papers later on when I have another chance to speak. We should be able to get hold of them in order to question the hon. the Minister and find out what is involved in each one of them. The question of costs is at the moment overshadowing the entire functioning of this Department. The costs are getting to be immense, and I shall quote later on figures of the capital which are being put into the building of dams in this country. When one thinks of the escalation factor that is built in in every rand which we put on the budget today for a dam, it is something which we have to consider. We can be quite sure that the cost of a dam will escalate by about 20% by the time it is completed and the hon. the Minister and his department can take that dam into use. The question of what we are going to do, how we are going to vote this money, when these White Papers come before us and the time we have to consider them, as well as the exchange of information we can get between the hon. the Minister and ourselves and the role we can play in this debate, is governed absolutely and completely by the date on which these White Papers are tabled.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River put a few questions to the hon. the Minister and I leave them to him for reply. I wholeheartedly endorse the tribute he paid to the department and to the hon. the Minister in consequence of the impact of the work of the Department of Water Affairs in our country. It is only under an NP regime that something can be done in that way.

Hear, hear!

The sooner the hon. member joins the National Party, the better.

Oh, no!

Several weeks ago, some members of Parliament on both sides of the House had the privilege of accompanying the hon. the Minister on a visit to the Boland water project. I want to endorse what the hon. member for Piketberg said and say that the work being performed at this Boland water project is really imaginative. We arrived at the Theewaterkloof Dam that morning and we saw a splendid relief map of the Boland mountains made by the Department of Water Affairs. It showed the Boland mountains in their true perspective and form and by the use of little lights one can see how tunnels are being cut in those Boland mountains. The general water distribution in the Boland could be clearly seen on this map. One could see a spiderweb-like network of water canals and tunnels indicating what is being done in respect of the supply of water in this area. I found it very exciting to see what great work is being done. This is creative work that is being done by the Department of Water Affairs and I think it merits praise indeed from all of us.

The latest project of the Department in this Boland water plan, is the Misverstand Water Scheme. This scheme was embarked upon after it had become known that there was going to be development in the Saldanha Bay area. The hon. member for Piketberg has pointed out that I advocated the so-called Misverstand Water Scheme in Parliament years ago. The then hon. member for Sea Point had a farm in the Twenty-four Rivers area and, after my speech, he came to me and said: Piet, my friend, this is the finest misunderstanding (misverstand) you could ever have spoken about. Today, this project has become a reality. An amount of R24 million has already been spent on the Misverstand-Saldanha Bay scheme and, from what I hear, this entire project will ultimately cost R56 million. It is a scheme that was completed over a very short period, a scheme which will in future supply the new complex in the Boland with water.

When I look at this evolving network, because of the impression it makes and the excitement it arouses in one one wonders whether a television programme could not be presented at some time or other to depict the totality and the impact of this Boland water scheme.

Where we sometimes say that in comparison with other parts of the country we are being given a raw deal I think it is essential that the people in the Boland should obtain an overall view of what is actually evolving around us. It is an established fact that wherever there is a lack of creative ability on the part of man poverty prevails. Whereas in the past we complained about the pattern of development in the Boland, one can now say to oneself on observing the present scheme: There will never again be poverty in the Boland!

I want therefore to ask the hon. the Minister whether we cannot have a television presentation to give people an overall view of this scheme. From a psychological point of view, two basic aspects of our Boland life—if I may express it in that way—are called to mind on viewing this scheme. And what are they? We have to develop an overall image in respect of our water potential in the Boland because in the Boland, where we have no mineral resources, water is our sine qua non. It is our very existence. Water is everything to us in the Boland, Mr. Chairman, and we have to have that overall picture of what is evolving there at the moment.

I want to mention a few examples to indicate how, in the past, we displayed an altogether wrong psychology relating to our water situation in the Boland. Every now and again the department came along and diverted the excess water from the Twenty-four Rivers into the Voëlvlei Dam through a canal system they had built there. Prior to this the overflow from the Twenty-four Rivers flowed into the sea at Velddrift and Laaiplek. Do you know what was the first reaction on the part of the people there? They were angry. They said: No, we cannot take the water of the Twenty-four Rivers and divert it to the Voëlvlei dam to be taken from there to Cape Town. It is our water, even though three-quarters of that water flows into the sea. That was an altogether wrong psychological approach. Today, these people display a totally different point of view. Let us take, for example, the reaction in respect of the syphoning effect of the Cape Town metropolitan area on our greater water potential in the Boland. Today we obtain water for Cape Town from the Voëlvlei dam and we obtain it in the Wemmershoek Valley and at Gordon’s Bay.

And Theewaterkloof.

Yes, and ultimately also at Theewaterkloof. There are people who tell one: No, but you see, the syphoning effect of the Cape Town metropolitan area on our Boland water resources is becoming too great; this is wrong. Now, Mr. Chairman, an overall view can rectify such a reaction on the part of our people.

There is also another example I should like to mention. After the announcement of the Boland water plan, I stood up in Parliament and made a plea that water be led from Mitchell’s Pass, as indicated in the final phase of the Boland water plan. It can be brought to the Tulbagh valley by means of a water canal system between the Witzenberg and the Winterberg where we make the Twee Jongegezellen which rates among the best white wines in our country. This is a fertile valley, Sir, and the situation today is that the Little Berg River flows through the Tulbagh valley but that, geographically, circumstances do not permit of storage of this water there.

The result is that the water of the Little Berg River is now being led into the Voëlvlei Dam. Now the people of the Tulbagh Valley say that they have to be assisted from another source, and the only way in which this can be done is that ultimately additional provision will have to be made for these people in the vicinity of Mitchell’s Pass. When we consider the overall picture, Sir, we can rectify these reactions on the part of our people. There are people who tell one today that the price of water from the Theewaterkloof Dam is going to be higher than that of the water from the P. K. le Roux Dam. I do not know, Sir; perhaps the hon. the Minister will be good enough to help me and tell us whether or not that is going to be the position. But if that is in fact going to be the case, it may perhaps be wrong. The people say so. I want therefore to ask that we make use of our television service to bring home to our people the totality and the overall impact of this Boland Water Scheme.

In the second place, we must consistently follow a policy whereby greater responsibility is assigned to the people of a particular environment when it comes to the control of water. We must abandon the idea that the State and the Minister have to supply the water; that we must ask for as much as possible and that they must supply it as cheaply as possible! Therefore, when it comes to the establishment of the water boards, Sir, we must regard the matter from a different point of view. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, to begin with I just want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on the completion of the P. K. le Roux Dam. On this occasion I should also like to convey my congratulations to Mr. Davies, who is sitting here in the benches reserved for officials. He was responsible for the construction of the P. K. le Roux Dam. On my repeated visits to the site, I was impressed by his meticulous approach and methods of work.

I hope the hon. the Minister will be in a position next year to make funds available for the completion of the subterranean pipes underneath the Orange River from the north bank to the south bank, and also to make funds available in the next budget for the speedy completion of the south bank canal. Below the P. K. le Roux Dam, between Petrusville and Hopetown, the State will for the first time in history have the opportunity of checking the depopulation of the rural areas, and not only of checking it, but, I believe, of altogether reversing the process into one of growth for the communities of Petrusville, Philipstown, Hanover, De Aar, Hopetown and Strydenburg. The infrastructure has already been provided, Sir. As far as educational facilities are concerned, the necessary hostels are already available. School buildings are already available. Electric power is available from Escom’s networks; there is rail transport, and there are hospitals. Virtually everything is there. All that is still lacking, is a sufficient number of White farmers. I know it is not always possible to check the process of depopulation or to effect a denser population in a sparsely populated area, but it is possible in this region. If we are in earnest about meeting this problem in that area, then the Government now has the opportunity of doing so in the area between Petrusville and Hopetown. I am afraid that unless this opportunity is seized, this will also be the last opportunity for the Government to settle White farmers here.

I should like to talk about the international status of the department. The impression is sometimes created that South Africa is isolated. That is not so in the case of this department either. The Department of Water Affairs plays an immense role in the activities of international organizations. I should like to mention a few of these organizations. Here I have in mind, for example, of the International Commission on Large Dams. The objectives of this international commission are improvements in the design, construction, maintenance and operation of large dams, and the reciprocal exchange of information. Participation in the activities of this international organization is very important to South Africa in general specifically to the Department of Water Affairs.

Relatively speaking, South Africa is a country with scant water resources, and a limited number of perennial rivers, and it is mainly dependent upon the building of storage dams in order to ensure the supply of water for domestic use, industrial development and, of course, for irrigation. The exchange of ideas and information becomes more and more important as new problem areas are discovered and new methods of analysis, operation and construction have to be found to ensure the safety of structures and the optimal utilization of water. Since its admission to this organization, South Africa has played a very active role and has made numerous contributions at international congresses. South Africa regularly participates in the technical discussions of the technical committees of this organizations. South Africa has always derived benefit from its membership of this organizations. Seventy countries are members of this organization with its 16 technical committees, and South Africa has been elected to serve on 9 of these technical committees.

What is also interesting, is the fact that the Secretary for Water Affairs was vice-president of this international organization during the period 1973 to 1976. I just want to mention that the Secretary for Water Affairs was unanimously elected to this important position—which is really an remarkable achievement in the world today. Furthermore, a senior engineer of the department was elected as chairman of one of these 9 technical committees I mentioned.

Later this year—in October—the executive assembly of this organization will have its 46th congress in Cape Town. Certain technical study tours of the Western Cape, the Southern Cape, the Orange River project and Natal are being planned to take place after the congress. The department has derived a great deal of benefit from this international contact and was, among other things, able to obtain information from member countries which would otherwise not have been readily accessible. We have already sent two of our engineers to member countries of this organization for training in various facets of dam construction engineering which is not available in South Africa. Secondly, South Africa and this department have also acquired international status through its membership of the International Water Supply Association. This is another organization I want to mention in order to call attention to the international status of the department. The objective of this international organization is the discussion and exchange of technical information in connection with the purification, reticulation and measuring of water. The active participation of the department in the activities of this organization is reflected in the fact that a departmental engineer was one of the two South Africans who, at a congress in Tokyo, Japan, this year, reported to the chairman of this Committee on Water Resources on South Africa’s achievements and, of course, also on its problems in this regard.

This departmental representative also serves on the international committee for water measuring. I can also mention the association for Society of Water Pollution Research. Then I want to mention the Southern African Regional Commission for Soil Conservation and Utilization. Here South Africa has played an active part since the inception of this international organization. This organization was established with the object of effecting technical co-operation in the field of the utilization and conservation of resources. At present South Africa, South West Africa, Botswana, Malawi, Rhodesia and Swaziland are members of this association, which is known as SARCCUS for short. South Africa has three representatives in this body. The interests of the department in the activities of SARCCUS mainly relate to hydrological aspects, and for that reason we are also represented in the Standing Committee for Hydrology.

Furthermore, the department has also acquired international status through its membership of the International Tunnel Association. Next month, in June, there will be a meeting in Tokyo at which two of the officers of the department will represent South Africa. It will be the first time that we will be represented at this annual meeting.

Apart from this liaison with the rest of the world, we also have co-operation and liaison with neighbouring states and independent homelands. The various parts of the world realize that there are joint international water and energy development projects that have a stabilizing influence on the interrelations of peoples.

South Africa has attained a high standard of technological know-how in the field of water provision, irrigation and the generation of hydro-electric power, and it is important that this knowledge should also be imparted to our neighbouring states and to our independent homelands. The department, in conjunction with friendly neighbouring states, is therefore actively engaged in investigating joint schemes that can be developed to mutual advantage. In this regard, I could perhaps mention Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Rhodesia. As soon as the political climate in Botswana and Mozambique permit of such a course, attention will also be given to those countries. In connection with Transkei, I just want to mention that a feasibility study has been completed for the hydro-electric power scheme on the Umzimvubu River. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure once again to participate in this debate, because although it is of a highly technical nature, it is gratifying to know that we are able to meet here to discuss this matter, and not to practise politics. We experienced that pleasure in the debate on agriculture, and probably today there will once again be such an opportunity for both sides of the House.

It is the function of the Government to create water resources; the Government has indeed done that, and we are all very grateful. If I may just refer to what the hon. member for Moorreesburg said, I want to tell him that this was done by the State and not by a political party. However, I say this with a smile.

Not only the farmer, but also the industrialist and the domestic water consumer derive benefit from the creation of new water resources, but to me and others uncertainty exists in regard to the price policy of the Department of Water Affairs. The hon. member for Moorreesburg also made a cursory reference to this little problem, and I am sure the hon. the Minister will react to it later on. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister what precisely the policy is, because it appears as if the department at present has two different approaches in respect of the determination of tariffs for agricultural water. It appears to me as if there is one approach or policy for those schemes that were completed in terms of the recommendations of the Irrigation Financing Commission of 1947; and here the recommendation was that water tax on Government irrigation schemes should at least be adequate to cover operating costs, maintenance and depreciation. I should like to know whether this policy or approach has now been changed, because if we refer to page 156 of the annual report of the department, we find that it is stated—

The question I want to put in this regard is that if the old policy—and I might possibly be wrong, I concede that—applies in respect of the older schemes, then we should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether these conditions are being complied with; if not, does he think that it might well be the case in the near future? On pages 168 to 170 of the same report there is a comparative statement of unit costs and as I understand this, it appears to me as if there are operating deficits on just about every scheme. This is a lengthy table, and I am sure that the hon. the Minister and also other hon. members have made a study of this and will therefore be able to tell us what the position is and how, in his opinion, this situation will develop. I get the impression that the expected revenue is not forthcoming.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to refer to the policy in regard to the schemes that were commenced after 1970. I want to quote from the Annual Report again. Paragraph (ii) on page 156 reads—

In a previous paragraph on the same page, the second paragraph under “Irrecoverable expenditure”, reads as follows—

It appears to me as if the two ideas are somewhat contradictory. It is stated on the one hand that the full capital amount and the operating costs must be covered, and on the other hand it is stated that only a part thereof and also a percentage of the interest and redemption costs should be covered bearing in mind the share of capital costs recoverable. Mr. Chairman, I think I have now talked rather confusedly, but I think the hon. the Minister will understand my problem.

I do not have the first reference you made.

You will find both references on page 156. You will find the reference to the older schemes under subparagraph (iii), and it begins with the words—

I am sorry that this is a bit confused, but these are highly technical matters and I am not technically inclined at all. It appears as if there are two approaches, and the hon. the Minister could perhaps clarify the matter for us. I should like to hear what he has to say in this regard.

This is where my problem arises. If these two different policies were to apply, it would mean that in some areas, where schemes were established earlier, those agriculturists will obtain water at a tariff that is and will remain considerably lower than that applicable to farmers who are unfortunate in that the schemes supplying them with water were constructed after 1970. Those people, who often grow the same product, who compete in the same market and have the same overhead costs, will, on account of the price they have to pay for water, not be able to be competitive. I do not want to refer to certain areas, because it is not my idea to play off one area against the other. I merely want to make the point that there is a difference between the old scheme and the new.

Mr. Chairman, I want to propose that if the hon. the Minister agrees with me that a problem does in fact exist, we must try to solve that problem. I believe that can be done by requesting the department to evaluate every existing water scheme. In other words, it must be ascertained what it would cost to establish that scheme today. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it so happens that I want to speak on the very same matter the hon. member for Wynberg touched upon, and in the course of my speech I shall come back to his arguments. We must realize, however, that in respect of old schemes there are vested interests and that it would be unreasonable to expect them to pay the full maintenance costs and interest now. I also want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Moorreesburg said when he spoke about greater responsibility on the part of local bodies and people who use irrigation water in the control and management of water schemes.

As the hon. member for Wynberg has said, we have two distinct systems of water control in the country. We have the irrigation boards, each of which controls its own affairs and which also have to pay the interest and maintenance costs themselves. In course of time they also have to make an attempt to discharge all debts. On the other hand, we have the Government water schemes that are fully financed by the State and where advisory committees supply the department with advice.

If we go into the history of the financing of Government water schemes, qe find that the Government supplied far less aid to irrigation boards. They received a subsidy of 33⅓%, and they themselves had to find the remaining 66⅔% and also pay all the maintenance costs connected with such a scheme. As the hon. member for Wynberg has said, it is a policy that has been applied since 1946. This policy was aimed at subsidizing irrigation schemes which, in ensuring increased production, were of direct and indirect benefit to the country. In other words, the policy was that the State should construct the schemes for the benefit of the country. I think today we should adhere to this policy to a large extent. In the annual report to which the hon. member for Wynberg also referred, there is a very thorough study of these matters. This year, the deficit on the maintenance of the schemes mentioned in the statements amounts to R7 million. If one adds interest, the deficit this year is R46 million. The deficits over the years add up to R350 million. It is therefore very essential that we take stock of this matter. In general I think we can say that these schemes ought to pay for themselves and that it is certainly not fair that irrigators should pay more than other people.

The Commission of Inquiry into Water Affairs also made recommendations about this matter. The commission said that in respect of these schemes we should at least aim at recovering the interest and obtaining a steady redemption of capital. There is also another idea we must consider, namely a national tariff for water. Everybody must then pay for water in accordance with quantity, availability and quality. I have considered this matter carefully. If one takes a careful look at all the various regions in our country, it soon becomes evident that there are vast differences in respect of potential and that it will not be possible to apply this system fairly. The hon. member for Wynberg was justified in saying that every scheme should be regarded as unit orientated, and should be evaluated as such.

I want to thank the department for the very clear exposition of this entire situation in the annual report, and also for the figures relating to individual schemes. Like the hon. member for Wynberg, I therefore advocate that every scheme should be treated on its merits. I also want to request that the local community should play a more important part in Government schemes. The irrigation board system is a very good and well-tested system that takes all these things into account, but I do think there are certain shortcomings of which we should take cognizance. I think, for example, that the person in charge of a Government water scheme should be an engineer or a person with technical training. I should prefer that such a person be a Government officer and that the irrigation board should compensate the State for his salary. Technical knowledge is very essential in controlling and managing a scheme economically. Water is a resource that we should utilize to the best of our ability. We cannot allow people without proper training to handle the management of our storage dams, for example. If we could achieve more enthusiasm for the irrigation board system, many benefits could result from that. We should obtain better utilization of labour, for example. In my constituency, farmers are always very sceptical about the Government’s utilization of labour. They are quick to say that the men lean on their spades instead of working. If they themselves had an interest in such a scheme, they would have taken much better care of labour. With a view to the economical use of water, too, it is important that farmers should be given a greater say. In particular I should like to see, that farmers should have a greater interest in the financial management of the scheme and in decision-making on how rates should be levied and how much they should be.

I want to conclude with a brief quotation of what was said in 1970 by the Commission of Inquiry into Water Affairs under the chairmanship of Dr. Viljoen and on which the present Secretary for Water Affairs, Dr. Kriel, also served. I quote as follows—

I therefore want to conclude by saying that irrigators should obtain a greater share in the control and management of water affairs and that, in that way, we should obtain the best results in the interests of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I want to continue the line of thought followed by the hon. member for Humansdorp about water tariffs, but I shall come back to that aspect of his speech at a later stage.

I want to devote my speech to the growing disquiet which is felt in the world about the provision of food, especially to underdeveloped countries. In dealing with the provision of food, especially to underdeveloped countries, I am thinking of the provision of food in the light of the constantly increasing production cost. Sir, we have the phenomenon that the production cost of our agricultural products, more specifically of food, is rising so sharply that it could even make it difficult to provide food. It is that production cost of food which could assume such proportions that we could be faced with the threat of a shortage, in under-developed countries in particular.

Seen in the light of a threatening food shortage all over the world because of exceptional production costs, I want to advocate the exploitation of a hitherto untapped source of food production, i.e. the production of fresh water fish in our inland regions. The Republic of South Africa has shown tremendous growth over the past decade or so, and here I must mention with great pride the growth in regard to irrigation dams in our country. Gratifying things have been said here today in respect of this department which has such splendid achievements to its credit in providing irrigation dams. It testifies not only to engineering achievements, but to a foresight which is really commendable in the growth of our country.

These dams are often regarded as a source of recreation and we often read how attempts are made in respect of irrigation dams in the inland regions to expand recreational facilities at these dams. But, Sir, I think these dams have a much greater value in connection with the production of food and especially with regard to the breeding of fresh-water fish in our inland lakes. I have checked certain statistics in this connection and it is interesting to see that the major dams in our country have an area of 161 000 ha. Now, Sir, an area of 161 000 ha is a considerable area which is made available for the breeding of fresh-water fish. I also want to quote a few statistics in connection with the yield per hectare in dams abroad as well as elsewhere in Africa in respect of fresh-water fish. In Lake Victoria, the yield is 1,5 kg per ha per year; Lake Kariba yields 5,7 kg per ha annually; in Lake Tempe in Indonesia, the annual yield is about 800 kg per ha. The average yield all over the world is 5 kg per ha per year, but the wonderful thing is that in Israel, the yield is 35 metric tons per ha per year. Therefore it goes without saying that when we study these statistics, we see that our inland dams have a food potential to which only a minimum of research is being devoted at this moment.

For this reason, I plead for research to be undertaken on a much larger scale in respect of the breeding of fresh-water fish, for by this means we could feed a large number of our inhabitants, especially those in the lower income group. Therefore I want to advocate today that a fresh look be taken at the inland breeding of fish and that active assistance be rendered in connection with the financing of research projects. I feel that we could make great progress in this respect.

I realize that we have great problems with the marketing of certain kinds of food at the moment, but I do not intend to play off certain food commodities against one another here. I want to plead here for a greater provision of food to our rapidly growing population, especially in the lower income group.

The question of breeding is not all, Sir, because I am also thinking here of research which has to be done in this connection in respect of the boning and marketing of freshwater fish. Here we find ourselves in the fortunate position that virtually all our large inland dams, with a few exceptions, are situated in the densely populated parts of our country. I believe that the potential which is hidden in our dams present a splendid challenge to the Department of Water Affairs in these days.

While I still have a few minutes left, Sir, I should like to say a few words about my constituency. I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister and the department for the fact that we in the Lower Sondags River Valley can expect to get the first water from the Orange-Fish River project in the Mentz dam for the irrigation of the Lower Sondags River Valley at the end of this month. This will be a splendid opportunity, an opportunity for which the farmers of the Lower Sondags River will be grateful, not only to Providence, but also to this department. This will be the culmination of years of waiting for this water which was promised us long ago. It will be a great occasion, for which I thank the department sincerely.

But, Mr. Chairman, we must immediately add that when this water comes to the Mentz dam at the end of this month, we shall be getting only a part of the volume which was originally intended to be supplied to the Mentz dam. I want to plead here that another look should be taken at the original plans for a maximum volume to be supplied to the Mentz dam; that another look should be taken at the original plans which were drawn up for the provision of the necessary canals.

Then is another aspect I must also mention, and that is the increase in the tariff for irrigation water. I agree, as the hon. member for Humansdorp put it, that one has to look at the cost of constructing irrigation dams. But when one examines our history, one cannot help being impressed by the socio-economic value of irrigation dams in the past. Another value has been added, as I mentioned at the start, the value of recreation, but it is the socio-economic value in particular which i consider to be important.

I am thinking here of the depopulation of the rural areas and the recovery of taxation from the irrigation farmer by the Treasury. This is an indirect way of recovering the cost of construction, but I believe it is nevertheless a very positive way. What I want to advocate here is that in calculating the cost of construction to be recovered, we should take into consideration these two aspects of evaluation when irrigation schemes are constructed, i.e. the socio-economic as well as the recreational aspect. It should not be recovered only by means of direct levies on irrigation water.

If that money is to be directly recovered from the farmer by means of water tariffs, it will be a bad outlook for the irrigation farmer, because the higher production cost which the irrigation farmer has to contend with in these days is causing great privations indeed. We have people here who find themselves in a desperate position. That irrigation farmer not only has to see to the intensive cultivation of his land by means of his agricultural machinery, but in these days he is also economically handicapped by a high water tariff. I therefore want to advocate that other ways of recovering the cost of construction of dams should also be considered.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by expressing a few thoughts in connection with the irrigation scheme at Douglas. I want to thank the hon. the Minister and the Secretary for Water Affairs for the great improvements which have been made there in recent years and which have made things easier for the owners and irrigators. My personal thanks to all, and on behalf of the farmers I want to say that conditions have improved a great deal and that there is great satisfaction among the people today about the assistance they have received.

As regards the report which was published in connection with the matter, and for the sake of the record, I nevertheless want to mention a few things. The greater part of the canal which serves the area is lined with concrete, except for the first five kilometres, which have not yet been lined. However, it has now become essential for this part to be lined with concrete and to be protected as well. In order to ensure the maximum production, it has also become necessary to enlarge the remaining parts of the canal. The estimated cost of the proposed works is R1 350 000. This amount includes the reparation of certain weathered parts of the canal, the building of a suitable canal road, storm-water crossings, two patrol huts and the construction of fences along the full length of the canal. In addition, 18 200 metres of earth canals will be replaced by the concrete-lined canals and pipelines. The chief aim of the proposed improvement is to restrict the irrigation losses to a minimum. Other advantages include a reduction in seepage losses through the earth canals, which cause the irrigation land to become waterlogged, a more adequate and guaranteed supply of irrigation water and an easier scheme to maintain and operate.

According to the report, the proposed improvement works are expected to be completed in 1981. We foresaw the problems eight years ago and knew even then that something would have to be done. These irrigators have had a hard time. More than 1 270 morgen are under irrigation, and these people’s units are only 8½ ha in extent. This is one of the old schemes which were established in 1890. Consequently the people found it difficult to make a living. There are other reasons as well, Sir. Evaporation is high in those parts, and because many of the canals were earth canals, a lot of water was lost. However, the soil often became waterlogged as well and in some parts mineralization occurred. The mineralization increased in later years. The carrying capacity of the canal also became too small. An after having struggled for so many years to have the situation improved, the hon. the Minister and Dr. Kriel of his department visited the area two years ago and gave specific attention to the circumstances of the people. At peak hours it was simply impossible to satisfy the needs of the farmers with vineyards, and this at a time when they needed it most to irrigate their holdings. The result was that these people suffered really great losses, and for the first time in history, these things, which received no attention over the years, while other large works were completed, will now be rectified. The people sincerely appreciate the fact that the problems they had to contend with under the old scheme have now been rectified and solved. I have more than 750 kilometres of irrigation land under me in the Boegoeberg scheme, and I want to commend the department for what it has done in looking after the needs of our people who were less privileged, in order to improve their position for the future, and not only looking at new projects which have to be undertaken in the future. I now see a new future for these people. On behalf of these people I convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister and the department once again.

When the Orange River project was originally announced, the idea was that a pipeline would be built from the Boegoeberg dam to certain parts of the Kalahari, in order to supply water to the stock farmers there. However, nothing came of this project, and today more than ever there is a great need for water in those regions. I should like to know the hon. the Minister’s and the department’s plans for the future of these regions. The production potential of these regions is great. The Minister of Agriculture will visit that region on 6 December this year and I trust that he will realize that these people really have no other way out. Many of the farms in the Kalahari have not even been planned yet because they have not yet been supplied with water and therefore do not know how to plan. If the decision of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is implemented, namely that the subsidy should be reduced from 40% to 25% this year, these people will suffer great losses in any event, because they will lose a part of the subsidy for the planning there. These people’s position is not improving; it is deteriorating.

In 1968, I approached the Department of Water Affairs, and the Minister and the chief engineer paid a visit there and inspected the irrigation areas beyond Prieska. Large-scale development can take place there; the production potential is high; the soil is up to 30 feet deep and there is enough water. It is a large area of 30 000 morgen. A departmental commission was appointed at that time to investigate the matter. The chairman was Mr. Cocks, the chief engineer. As far as I know, the commission’s report was never made public, but as far as I have been able to ascertain, the commission recognized the possibility of a retaining wall under the confluence of the Vaal River and the Orange River.

The irrigators there are having great problems today, partly because of the fact that they have to irrigate by means of electricity and the cost of Escom power has risen so sharply that they can no longer afford it. I should like to know what the possibilities are of the matter being investigated further so that the future position could be improved.

I want to use my last few moments to bring a very serious matter to the hon. the Minister’s attention. We have often discussed this matter with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I do not want to use the word “pests”; I prefer to speak of a “plague”. Never before in our history have we been faced with such a serious gnat plague as we are dealing with now. I cannot describe the situation to you today, Sir. It is simply not possible to say what it involves and what damage is being done. It is truly a pest, Sir. The moment the sun rises, the gnats descend on the animals. Those poor animals are rubbing themselves raw to get rid of the gnats. The ewe that has lambed leaves her lamb untouched; she does not even clean it. By tonight she is still lying there; she may get up to go and drink some water. This problem is driving our farmers to desperation. Because the ewe does not feed the lamb, we lose the lamb as well. The lambing percentage of a large number of the farmers is only 20%, 25% to 30% this year. We cannot go on like this, Sir. The calving percentage is below 40%. My own is below 40%. What are we to do in this connection? The teats of the cows are so badly eaten that the cows will not let the calves drink; the teats are too tender because they are full of scabs. The only relief comes when the water level in the river is lowered. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Prieska mentioned a pitiable case to this Committee. I do not know what the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs can do in that regard, but I must say that the hon. member has all my sympathy. When I speak about the Douglas area later on, he must please realize that I use it merely as an example to state my case to the hon. the Minister.

†Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a request to the hon. the Minister that in future where members of Parliament are informed of the workings of the department by means of White Papers, it be made possible for a new form of White Paper to be laid before Parliament. I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is necessary for every member of Parliament to get copies of the White Papers that are tabled. This year something like 18 White Papers have been tabled. I do not believe that anybody who is not a member of this Standing Committee even looks at them. I think it is a complete waste of money. I am aware that the Act requires these schemes to be submitted to Parliament, but I wonder if it is not possible through the Standing Rules and Orders Committee to arrange for us to obtain White Papers in a different form which would be supplied to members of this Standing Committee who are the people charged with the Water Affairs Vote here in the House. I would like to see folders given to us.

If one considers that we are now in the fourth phase of the Ngagaan Scheme in Northern Natal and in the fourth phase of the Usutu-Komati Vaal link scheme. We have about 6, 8 or 10 White Papers on the Berg River, Saldanha Bay, Jonkershoek and so forth.

[Inaudible.]

That is right; it is very important. However, to expect members of Parliament to go through and identify all of them—I have been here for 14 years and I have a stack of them—to put them together and then try to identify the cost and the amounts that have been included each year in the papers that have been submitted to Parliament, is in my opinion asking a great deal of members. I wonder whether it is not possible to have a formal White Paper which will be consolidated so that when there is something new in connection with the Saldanha Bay Scheme, for example, one will be able to put that into a folder which will have an extension whereby one can follow the running costs of the matter, viz. how it is building up. I am quite sure hon. members do not go back over the old White Papers to find out how costs have built up over the years. I think it would be a matter not only of tremendous interest but also of great benefit to the Department itself and to Parliament if a scheme of this nature could be introduced. One of the problems is to identify cost escalations. Every White Paper that comes before the House—I may have missed a couple—indicates that there has been an increase in costs due to the escalation of some or other fact.

I would like to discuss very briefly with the hon. the Minister the question of how these White Papers are laid out. In every single one of them, towards the end, the last half of the printed material that is laid before members of Parliament deals with the fact that land has to be expropriated by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. There is a whole paragraph about that particular subject. There is the question of identifying the capital costs. Interest is capitalized and charged against the project, etc. With every one of these White Papers the same things are reiterated, whereas if it were possible to have a standard White Paper which was set out in a certain way, it would be possible at the beginning of the year to insert that paragraph in number A, B or C or whatever it may be. In every other White Paper after that mention could be made as follows: D—cost so much; X—cost so much. This will save an enormous amount in printing costs and hard work on the part of members who now have to wade through all these items to see whether in fact there has been any change in the format of what the Department is putting before the House and, if so, why there is a change. I would suggest that where standard terms appear which are used in every White Paper motivating the cost of the White Paper and the amendment of the cost which is put before Parliament, it should be possible to simplify this and to standardize everything so as to have merely a number, an amount of money that is required for the purposes of that particular White Paper.

I wish to talk now about the escalation of costs. This has a very important bearing on what the members of Parliament are supposed to do with these White Papers. The Department comes to us with a White Paper on, say, Riviersonderend/Berg River Government Water Works. It is a consolidation of a whole lot of other White Papers which we have had before us. In this particular White Paper under the heading of the Jonkershoek Tunnel on page 17, the construction costs of the second phase of the project were estimated at R28 million. Since then it has been stated in Supplementary White Papers on the first phase that this amount will not be sufficient. A new estimate of costs amounts to R62 million. This is an escalation or increase in the building costs of R34 million, which is more than the total cost first estimated. Members of Parliament are presented with a White Paper which says the cost will be R28 million. Very well, one expects that there will be an escalation here and there in certain amounts.

However, an escalation of R34 million over R28 million is something which to my mind, if members really pay attention to what the costs of these schemes are, might have a material effect on the decision of members of this Committee as to whether that construction project should continue or not. I think that we would welcome the opportunity to have a look at this sort of thing. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what the rights of members of this Committee are.

We have a scheme here in which the hon. member for Mossel Bay will be interested— the Moordkuil scheme for water for Mossel Bay.

Do not steal my thunder.

No, I am not going to. Mind you, the hon. member can reply to me because I am making his “speech” for him! What if we were to decide that we did not want to go ahead with that scheme because we could not afford it during this particular financial year? What if that were the finding of this Standing Committee? We face the situation where the Act requires that White Papers be tabled in Parliament. We are given certain facts on which we have to make a decision. Where does the cost benefit ratio of this matter come in? Under what circumstances do we decide as to what the benefits are of a scheme such as this, the Riviersonderend-Berg River scheme, the cost of which has escalated now from R28 million by the R34 million which is mentioned in the White Paper? Who decides? Are we simply bound by a situation where in order to provide water for a particular area we have simply to incur this expenditure? Do we have no option? Or is it possible that in a situation like this the Department or the Minister or Parliament may say: “Look, this scheme is too expensive. We have to find another way of doing it,” or something to that effect? I am particularly interested …

Obviously Parliament can decide. That is why we are here.

Yes, Parliament can decide, Sir. But then in that situation the White Paper that we have here before us is the only information that Parliament and members have which is going to enable them to decide. Never in all the years that I have been here has anybody ever stood up and say: “Look, I do not think we can afford to go ahead with that.” I want to ask the hon. the Minister to look at the report of the department. On page 145, section 129, Table C, we read the following: Government Water Schemes, capital expenditure up to March 31st 1977. This I imagine is the consolidated figure of all capital expended. The figure is R1 258 million which has been spent presumably since 1910 or whenever on the construction of water works.

I want to raise the question of the period of 45 years which is laid down in every White Paper as the useful life of a scheme. What happens after the 45 years? Do the costs then fall away? I ask this question because on page 150 we find that the income of the Department from the sale of water—this is what I should imagine is its only revenue—is R19 386 000. How does the Department or the State or whoever, cover the interest charged on the R1 000 million which is invested in State Government Water Works over the years? We have been told and we know that the Orange River Scheme has been built on a scale which was too large for immediate needs. We do not expect to recover all the capital invested. We do not expect to recover all the capital invested as far as irrigation schemes are concerned. I ask the hon. the Minister, whether we in South Africa can afford any kind of Government irrigation scheme for farming any longer at present building costs? Because, Sir, I think we are going to reach the stage soon when we are going to have to make a decision. The hon. member mentioned Douglas. In the White Paper it has been stated categorically by the Secretary of the Department that Tugela water pumped over the berg into the Vaal River is now too expensive, and there will not be any further extensions of the Douglas Scheme; they cannot afford it any longer. Now, that is one place where it is said that the water is too expensive. If we are going to continue in this way, bearing in mind the escalation in costs, we are going to rule out irrigation farming in South Africa altogether. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me, after a very interesting discussion, to reply to a few points. However, I first want to refer to the hon. member for Mooi River because I hear that he has other obligations as well this afternoon. He is worse off than the Department of Water Affairs. I think he is going to fall between two stools if he carries on like this. The hon. member referred to the total expenditure and I just want to point out to him that this is from 1882 onwards, that is if he and I are referring to the same page of the annual report. The calculations from those earliest times are purely academic and today no further attempt is being made to recover anything from those old schemes. However, the hon. member is probably aware of the fact that tremendous amounts have been spent over the past few years.

In the first place I want to convey my appreciation for the thanks expressed by hon. members to my department for the exceptional task which they are performing. In view of the problems which the department is experiencing, it is encouraging to receive appreciation from hon. members on both sides. It began with the hon. member for Orange Grove, and various other members also conveyed their thanks. I, too, wish to associate myself with that because we have a technical department, a department which accepts a great responsibility but has to work with a shortage of staff and, of course, a shortage of funds as well. Mention was made here of the escalation of costs and all the problems that go with it. Nevertheless we have a department with dedicated officials who are tackling this great task of water provision to the best of their ability and in the interests of the country. Consequently I convey my thanks to hon. members for the appreciation expressed for my department.

A wide variety of matters were raised here, and it is therefore necessary for me to refer very briefly to certain aspects. In the first place a matter which gives rise to serious concern is the question of the cost of water. The hon. member for Wynberg referred to this, but if he had only referred to an earlier paragraph in the report, he would have seen that there are no inconsistencies in that elucidation. The first paragraph which he quoted related to the finding of the commission, while the last paragraph which he read out was one of the recommendations. The hon. member would do well to read it again. It vexes me a little that this matter has been raised again, since I dealt with the cost of water in detail during the discussion of this Vote last year. I referred to the recommendations of the 1970 Commission of Inquiry, and pointed out that the policy of the Government was based on those recommendations. They were made by the commission of inquiry, and the Government considered and accepted them. I dealt with this matter fully last year, and I can furnish hon. members with the Hansard columns in question. Nevertheless I want to refer to this matter again, because it is one which causes constant problems, particularly among our farmers, who allege that we are now initiating schemes which are becoming hopelessly uneconomic. The hon. member for Mooi River referred to this again. It is alleged that consideration should be given to whether or not we should continue with these schemes.

I want to refer once again to the recommendation of this commission, which deals with the agricultural sector. The relevant recommendation, No. 38, reads as follows—

That is what the hon. member for Wynberg referred to. The paragraph which I have just quoted, refers to new schemes. In the case of existing State irrigation schemes the recommendation of the commission reads as follows—

Mr. Chairman, to put this entire matter in its correct perspective, I shall have to go back and explain to the hon. member in detail that certain of these older schemes actually began as welfare schemes. People who experienced problems during the depression years, were settled there. People who returned from the First and Second World Wars, were established on irrigation schemes to try to provide them with a livelihood in this way. At the time land under irrigation was used as part of a welfare scheme. Instead of giving a person a sum of money every month, an opportunity was created for him by giving him irrigation land on which he could make a livelihood. Unfortunately some of these schemes failed, but the fact remains that they were welfare-orientated. To react in this way to a recommendation of this commission and adopt a different approach overnight and say that these people should pay the full operating costs and interest on capital is impossible for they will simply not be able to afford it. We are consequently increasing the rates every year. The hon. member will notice that this is the case if he reads the reports, and I shall explain it here. State water rates on State irrigation schemes at present money values will in future still have to be increased by 300% in order to recover at least the current annual operating and maintenance costs on the relevant schemes in terms of this policy, in spite of the fact that we have already increased the rates. However, the escalation of costs is so rapid that instead of recovering the costs, the gap is becoming wider. In the meantime we still have to deal with the objection from our farming communities that we are increasing the rates too rapidly. So that is the problem. I must mention, however, that there are already seven schemes out of a total of 75 where the revenue exceeds the operating costs, and this refers to the 1976-’77 financial year. A particular problem in this connection is of course that a large number of owners use far less than their full water quota, and in many cases have to pay less than half of the water rates for the full quota. This of course also has its influence. If, for example, there is an above average rainfall in a certain area, or if certain farmers apply new techniques and sophisticated methods, then they do not use their allowed basic quota and they pay less in rates. Others again have more land at their disposal, use all their water and irrigate more land than was originally contemplated. However, I allow this to happen, and the department is in favour of it, just as long as it results in the optimum utilization of water. I also encourage the saving of water wherever possible.

Consequently I want to tell hon. members that although an attempt will be made, in the national interests, to recover at least the full annual operating and maintenance costs of irrigation schemes by means of increased water tariffs, the ideal is also to apply a normal statutory subsidy of 33⅓% on the capital costs of State schemes on waterworks erected for irrigation purposes. I think we should be very clear on this point. The hon. member for Humansdorp referred to the State schemes. We also have irrigation board schemes, and farmers with private schemes, and I feel that we are discriminating between the two. A great deal is being said about the fact that various State schemes have varying tariffs, but that they produce the same products. But what about the irrigation boards? They only receive a one-third subsidy, while the private farmer who has his own scheme receives a one third subsidy to a maximum of R4 500, and in some cases this is only a small percentage of his total costs. So we are actually discriminating between various categories. Consequently I feel that we should increase that subsidy, for example in the case of the private person in whose case there is a restriction on the total amount of the subsidy, in order to bring him into line with the others. For in my opinion it is very unfair that a person who has to finance his own costs should be limited to a subsidy of R4 500. In the meantime the irrigation board also receives one third with no limits on the overall amount, while we are only moving in that direction in respect of State schemes. But, as I have explained, these problems are of an historical nature and it is extremely difficult to solve them overnight.

I wish to content myself with this and tell hon. members that under the present circumstances there is no justification for singling out the agricultural sector for accommodation with lower water tariffs in contrast with the other economic sectors of the national economy. If we consider the urban, industrial and mining sectors we find that they pay all the costs which are incurred. They redeem their capital and pay interest and operating costs. For that reason the position in connection with the construction of dams is now becoming very delicate. I also have the recommendations of the commission of inquiry in regard to the industrial, mining and local consumer sectors, but I do not intend going into these recommendations in the limited time at my disposal. But I do want to indicate how water costs have gone up during the past few years. I want to refer to untreated water from the Vaal River. In 1940 it cost 0,04 cents per cubic metre; in 1955, 0,05 cents per cubic metre; in 1960, 0,07 cents per cubic metre; in 1965, 0,08 cents per cubic metre and in 1970 it was 0,84 cents per cubic metre. During the five year period, 1965 to 1970, the costs rose from 0,08 cents to 0,84 cents per cubic metre. In 1975, within five years, they increased more than twofold to 1,82 cents per cubic metre, and in 1977 the costs were 1,90 cents per cubic metre. In other words, over a period of 37 years, the costs went up from 0,04 cents to 1,90 cents per cubic metre. I also want to mention the Berg River-Saldanha scheme as an example. I am not going to mention all the figures. In 1955 the cost of water from the Berg River was 3,16 cents per cubic metre and in 1977 it was 19,52 cents per cubic metre. If hon. members are alarmed at these figures, I want to tell them that the cost of water from the Vaal-Gamagara scheme for the development at Sishen was 50,85 cents per cubic metre in 1977. Those people pay this high price for water.

In addition there are further developments based on the Orange River scheme. Hon. members are aware of the Aggeneys development. Eventually we might also have to provide water from the Orange to the mining areas of Postmasburg. This water is going to cost a lot of money. But the other industries are able to pay for it. Yet cannot, as a result of that, say that agriculture cannot get any water and that there should consequently be no agricultural production. We are trying to be as helpful as possible. In future it will be necessary for agriculture to make a greater contribution. Otherwise the State will have to assist agriculture to a greater extent. But one must consider the overall position. I have figures available on the production costs of Vaalharts, and the hon. member for Kimberley North does not feel very happy about them and says that they are not correct. I could also quote examples from the Hex River Valley. Water comprises only a small percentage of the total production costs. Our farmers are inclined to say that water is becoming expensive. The fact of the matter is, however, that it is becoming expensive because it is scarce. In such cases the farmers will have to appreciate water to a greater extent. Something which one simply picks up or gets for nothing one does not appreciate very much. We cannot convince the public that they should use water judiciously. We shall at least have to tax it to such an extent that people will realize that water is scarce and that making it available is becoming an increasingly expensive process. It cannot be wasted and has to be utilized in the best interests of the country and the individual so that it can subsequently be said that a certain quantity of vegetables, fruit or grain is being produced per cubic metre of water and not per surface area unit of land. We shall have to apply that approach to this matter. I want to content myself with what I have said in this connection. But I also want to express the hope that hon. members will read the report of the commission as set out in the report of the department properly and examine the figures. One of the hon. members referred to the figures. If they do that they will get a clear picture of the problems we are facing. During the past year I have repeatedly made speeches in which I told people that water has to become more expensive, furnishing the reasons for this, and I do not want to do so again. The farmers are becoming angry with me, but they have never taken steps to establish the real reasons why water has to become more expensive. I hope hon. members will help me in this respect. Naturally it is essential that the public should understand this matter.

I want to refer briefly to the flood damage in the vicinity of our rivers during the past year. Perhaps one may count oneself fortunate if one has been Minister of Water Affairs for three years and there has been no drought. Every year the dams have been full, and in fact there is only one problem—too much water in some places. In this case I want to make it very clear to hon. members and to the general public that during drier seasons they lose sight of the fact that floods can occur.

This does not apply only to the farmers, but also to town planners and others. They planted gardens and orchards in the floodplains of rivers. This was a permanent investment. As soon as we experience above average rainfall years, as has been the case during the past few years, these people suffer tremendous damages. They then make representations to the department, asking us to control the floods. We cannot build dams to control floods. The department is trying to administer existing dams as well as possible in order to level off the floods at their peak. One cannot go any further than that. Dams are not planned and built in order to control floods. Now we are receiving pleas from people to the effect that when there is a good rain year we should allow the water level to drop a little because the ensuing year is going to be another good rain year. Statistics show, however, that two successive good rainy years are not a very frequent occurrence. If the rains stay away, and we have a dam, the water level of which has been allowed to drop by 10% because we expected a flood which never came, and we experience a drought, I do not want to have to stand here and explain why we released the water. Unfortunately these are the kind of arguments which are being advanced. In this connection I could refer to the Vaal dam. People constantly come to me and say: “This is the beginning of the summer season, and look how hard it is raining. Is it not possible for you, in the meantime, to allow the water level to drop?” We really cannot run that risk. Recently someone wrote me an unpleasant letter and blamed me because his house was under water. He wanted to know why the department had not allowed the water to flow out of the dam in time. All that we can do is to tell people that they must not build where the flood waters can reach them. The department cannot stop the flood waters. In terms of the White Paper which was recently tabled we hope to be able to exercise better control over floods by means of the new works at the Vaal dam.

During the past few years our river beds have also become extremely overgrown. This is because we have an even flow as a result of dams. In farming practices farmers often used river beds for grazing in the past. Now pasturage is being cultivated. Bushes that grow in the river beds are not being grazed; the vegetation is becoming thicker. As soon as a flood occurs, it dams up against the vegetation. This causes many problems, and the farmers are now asking the department to clear the river beds. We really cannot do that. If we had to do that as well, with the limited funds and manpower at our disposal, we would be able to do nothing else. When the next drought comes, we will be asked why the dams have not been built, because we should have known the drought was coming. This is the type of problem we are faced with.

You can’t win.

You can’t win; the hon. member is quite correct. However, we are doing our best not to be altogether on the losing side. We have here a very fine example of the Breë River valley where the management body went to work and started clearing the Breë River bed on behalf of the farmers and irrigators. In such cases the department is prepared to provide technical assistance, and is in fact doing so. I have already made it clear in a policy statement that in cases where permanent works are erected, a farmer may receive a subsidy on protective works in a river. Unfortunately this is also limited to an amount of R4 500 for all waterworks. I hope that this will encourage farmers to get down to this themselves and that irrigation boards will co-operate in order to counteract flood damage in river beds.

I also want to refer to the Pongola Poort dam, to which the hon. member for Orange Grove referred. He was not happy about this scheme, and the hon. member for Mooi River also mentioned it.

†In The Star of 3 March 1978 an article with the heading “Zululand dam a calamity” appeared, written by their political staff in Cape Town. The article was a sequel to a question put to me by the hon. Senator Bozas. Various members were asked to comment on this matter and this report states as follows—

Is that what the hon. member really said, because he did not say that today?

We were given to understand that there is a salt problem and that is why I referred to it.

Anyway, the hon. member has contradicted that statement today so I accept that he was ill-informed when he made that statement. [Interjections.] There is no serious salt problem, but I will deal with this matter a little later on. The article states further—

I have expressed my appreciation to hon. members who come forward with positive suggestions regarding the department and who express their appreciation for the work done by the department. I have nothing against criticism, but I do want to say that in a department of this nature where we do encounter problems and where people are doing their best I do not think it is fair to encourage newspapers to print this sort of rumour.

They do not need any encouragement.

That may be so, but I do feel that when they ask hon. members to comment on matters such as these, they should rather refer them to the department. The hon. member for Mooi River asked me to say something about this scheme and I do wish to make a statement about the scheme now.

*Every year, at some time or other, we have to tell this story all over again. At the outset I want to make it very clear, with reference to these reports in the newspapers, that I think that it is a very irresponsible thing to do. I did not want to react to this report earlier, but told my department that we could discuss the matter on this occasion. I have already said that the State is not at present in a position to proceed on a large scale with the canal scheme. No need exists for it at the moment, for this dam was planned in the first place for sugar cultivation. At present sugar prices are very low and consequently there is no urgency in this connection. I said previously, and the hon. member for Prieska thanked me for it, that the department does not merely initiate new schemes and shelve the old schemes. The department tries to give attention to both aspects. At present, however, there is an economic recession, and we do not have much money. A further consideration is that even if that scheme is rapidly completed now, there is no sense in proceeding to cultivate sugar. It may happen that when the scheme is complete sugar prices may once again be at a high level and that everyone will then say that it is a good thing. That area has 38 000 ha of good irrigable land on which no problems of any kind exist. There are a further 10 000 ha where one might perhaps experience salt problems, but the idea is to irrigate the 38 000 ha. Certain portions of the more sandy soil have a higher penetrability, but crop cultivation could be undertaken more economically there if sprinkler irrigation is applied. Of the denser soil only those portions which drain effectively can be developed. The surface area of utilizable irrigation land is far greater than the 35 000 ha for which water from the dam has been made available.

The original amount for which Parliamentary approval was requested in 1960 was R36 million, while the total expenditure up to March 1978 has been R24 376 000. The balance which is still available and which will be applied almost exclusively to the construction of canals, is therefore R11 624 000. Those canals, which were planned in 1960, can no longer be built for R11 million. The original estimates were made in 1959, and since then the increase in building costs has been at least 270%. Of the original estimate of R36 million, R24 million was to have been spent on the canal system. On this basis, and taking into consideration the escalating building costs, it may be expected that the cost involved in the building of the canal would now amount to approximately R90 million. The question may now be asked why the dam was built. It is easy to say with hindsight what we should have done, but I just want to point out that if we had not built the dam at the time, a dam with which there is no fault to find and which cost us R24 million, it would probably also have cost R90 million today to construct. Consequently that dam remains a good investment, for when we need it, it can be used. I have pointed out that the dam was constructed primarily for the sugar industry, but a variety of crops can be cultivated in that area. I paid a personal visit to the research station of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in that area, and they were of the opinion that a variety of crops could be cultivated there, for example subtropical and citrus fruit, wheat, tobacco, etc. But I am of the opinion that sugar cultivation is the best proposition there, and I hope that it will be possible in future. If we might want to supplement our energy requirements in future, we could cultivate sugar on the Makatini Flats, and supplement our energy resources. These are all possibilities which have to be borne in mind.

Another item of criticism to which I have to listen year after year is for example that the foundations of the dam are not strong, etc. In the past I said that we were experiencing problems with the Swaziland Government in connection with the dam. The dam is not being allowed to fill up because it has been foreseen that the water will push up into certain areas of Swaziland if the dam is allowed to fill up. Two weeks ago the department again held negotiations with officials from Swaziland. Swaziland originally agreed in principle to the dam being built and to the land being submerged. When it came to the finalization and the signing of the agreement, problems cropped up and they wanted all the rivers involved in that scheme. We are now in the process of negotiating. After the negotiations two weeks ago, I had hoped that I would be able to give a final decision on the matter today, but I do not want to anticipate matters. We had very fruitful and pleasant discussions with the Swaziland representatives, which are at present being continued on administrative level. After these talks I understand the problems of the Swaziland Government far better. They are experiencing many problems with development and, of course, want as much from us as they are able to get. It is quite understandable, and I do not take it amiss of them. But I do hope that we will be able to reach an agreement, and I want to add nothing further to that except to say that these negotiations have reached the stage at which we might be able to finalize them soon. I want to make haste, yet I want to express the hope that this matter, which crops up year after year, is now clear to everyone. The land is there, and there are no problems with the dam wall. It is in fact a sound investment. The canals are going to cost a great deal of money and will take a long time to complete. It will depend on whether there is an urgent necessity to continue. We can argue about whether we have spent the money wisely or not. I have said that I think we should be truly grateful that we have the dam today; we will not be able to construct a similar dam for that price today, and there is no doubt whatsoever about that.

I shall now return very briefly to a few other points. The hon. member for Orange Grove spoke about the annual report, and said that it should be made available earlier. He said the report came too late.

†The hon. member says it is past history by the time we get it, but I must tell the hon. member that unfortunately the position is that the end of the financial year is 31 March, and it is not possible to have this report available within three months of that date. I shall discuss this with the department again. We might possibly be able to have the report available during the course of the year, but we definitely cannot have it available during the same session. It has to be translated from either English or Afrikaans, and it is not possible to have the annual report available during the same session for discussion in Parliament. In any case, we have last year’s report available for discussion this year, and I must say it is far better than last year when we had two reports at the same time. We have, therefore, made some progress, and I think the hon. member should be grateful for that.

The hon. member raised some points in connection with the P. K. le Roux dam, and asked whether the decision that the department should build this dam was a correct one. I must tell him that there is no doubt in my mind that the decision was correct to have this dam built by the department. Regarding further detail, I should say that a final evaluation is now being made and these details will be available during the course of the year. Perhaps the hon. member could inquire at the department later on, and we could possibly have further discussions next year. However, the available figures prove that we have made a roaring success of that project. But the hon. member wants to know whether it would be a proposition for the department to go on building, or whether private contractors should do the work. I think the position in the past has been that the department itself did a certain percentage of the work, and we do not intend to change this. We train our engineers and the young people, and we think we can do a fairly good job. We do about 70% of the construction work ourselves, and the other 30% is put out to private contractors, and I think it is in the interests of the country that we keep more or less to this ratio.

The hon. member spoke about the Ciskei and water from the Orange River for the Ciskei. I would prefer not to give a detailed reply on this matter.

*The position is that this is Orange River water. The Ciskei does not adjoin the Orange River. The farmers in the vicinity are now trying to obtain a scheme, together with the Ciskei, so that they may also benefit from this. But we shall review this entire matter in order to see where the water may be utilized most beneficially. I agree with the hon. member’s argument that the homelands should develop, but whether Orange River water can really be used there is a matter which I should prefer not to comment on at present. I can tell him today that this is expensive water. We are able to use that water to a certain extent, and the Ciskei has its own water. We shall have to see to our own needs before we make Orange River water available for the development of the Ciskei. The water will then be so expensive that it will probably be utilized only for industrial or urban development.

†The hon. member spoke about the time scale. I want to refer to that quickly. The position is that as far as we are concerned the planning of the Orange River project is fairly flexible. The White Paper said there would be 25% of the water available for irrigation, 25% for urban and industrial use, while 50% is to be allocated in future as required by the country’s development. We are fairly flexible as far as that is concerned, and the whole development of that scheme depends on whether we can put a high priority on immediate further development. As I have indicated, we have other smaller schemes we also have to attend to. As soon as we have more funds available and a quicker rate of development we may be able to review the position.

I would like to add that the supply of water to Lake Menz in the Sundays River area, which was referred to by the hon. member for Somerset East, will, hopefully, be available in July this year. Water to Port Elizabeth is planned for 1986. Further, there is the irrigation from the Rama canals, which is proceeding. We have already settled a few farmers there—I think there are 12 or 15 of them. We do have a steady development there, but we also have to cater for other urgent needs elsewhere. Of course, we have the benefit of the development of electricity from the dam which is very, very important.

*Sir, I think I have devoted enough time to the hon. member. I want to refer very quickly to the hon. member for Piketberg and once again convey my appreciation to him. I just want to tell hon. members that I should like to reply to questions in the limited time at my disposal, but if hon. members do what the hon. member for Orange Grove did and ask six or more questions with wide implications, it places me in a very difficult position. I do not want to give an incomplete reply, for if one does so one runs the risk of encountering problems in that connection. I want to tell hon. members that if they want to ask questions with wide implications, they can ask them and receive the answers in private at a later stage. The negotiations in connection with Pongolapoort were also raised by the hon. member for Piketberg, and I furnished him with the reply. I just want to mention that there are alternatives, and I told the Swazis what they were. I told them that if they do not decide now, we are going to build a dam wall there so that the water does not back up into Swaziland. That will cost a few million. If we need that water urgently, we shall install pumps on the dam wall, and if there are floods, we shall pump the water over the wall. It is not a large catchment area. We can cope with it, and they must not think that we are entirely dependent on their approval. I stated this without beating about the bush, and they understood it, but I have already indicated that we can solve the problem.

I also want to convey my appreciation to the hon. member for his fine words concerning the officials of the department and our universities who produce the technicians. He asked what the position was in connection with the planning of the Misverstand Dam, and what we put forward as an alternative. I want to tell him that consideration is already being given to alternatives, but unfortunately it now seems that in the long term we will not be able to do anything else. That Misverstand Dam will have to be enlarged, but it is not a large area of land which will be submerged and therefore it ought not to create an exceptional problem for us.

The hon. member for Meyerton also expressed his appreciation and furnished us with an excellent elucidation from the book by Mr. T. C. Robertson. It is interesting if one can speak about the rivers in a more dramatic and romantic vein, but if one is dealing with hard realities, such as a shortage or an inundation problem, then things do not always sound so romantic or dramatic. I should like to express my appreciation for his approach.

As far as sewerage works and the subsidization of such works are concerned, I just want to point out that the department has a report dealing with regional sewerage schemes which will help smaller communities. The hon. member discussed his problem in Meyerton, and requested that it be considered to be a waterwork. The hon. member for Mooi River, on the other hand, said that they should sell the water to the department. I do not think that we can buy things that belong to us. I must tell the hon. member for Mooi River that the water in fact belongs to the State. The department is at present waiting for certain representations. Although the department foresees certain problems, they nevertheless think that such communities should be accommodated. I am saying this especially because they in turn supply purified water to the Vaal River.

The hon. member for Mooi River said that we should take the people to the water. I think that this ought to happen in future, and I have already said in the past that we should pump water from Natal, but it makes no sense to say that we should take the workers to the Witwatersrand along with the water. The workers and the water are in parts of Natal, and that is where one should try to get one’s development going. The difficulty, of course, is to work against the suction of existing development. The market is there, and everyone wants to go there, and that makes the position difficult. The hon. member then referred to the water reserves for the generation of electricity. That is of course what is happening there in the Drakensberg mountains. We have reserves in the P. K. le Roux Dam and in the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam which Escom is using for peak consumption. This, in turn, causes the great plague to which the hon. member for Prieska referred. I want to tell the hon. member that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is trying to control this matter in cooperation with my department. Dr. Howell has been seconded by them to look into this matter, but the position is that there used to be a fluctuation in the flow of the river. These days one has a reasonably steady flow, and this creates ideal conditions for the gnats to breed in. At one stage toxic substances were used.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? It is the combined flow of the two rivers which causes the plague. One of the two rivers is always flowing. Cannot the flow be reduced simultaneously?

I am aware of that; that is what I have just said. I thank the hon. member for the information. The position is this: One has a steady flow, the river flows over the stones, the midges lay their eggs on the stones and the eggs hatch out. If one were now to reduce the flow for a week, as is at present being done from the dam at Warrenton, then the eggs and the larvae are scorched to death on the stones. Previously success was achieved with toxic substances, but the Department of Health and medical practitioners feel that we are running great risks by using toxic substances. There is an hon. member sitting there who is a chemist, and he is nodding his head in agreement. These are the problems which we have, but I want to assure the hon. member for Prieska that my department as well as the Department of Agricultural Technical Services are doing their best.

The hon. member for Prieska told a heartrending story. Every time I see the hon. member for Prieska, I feel sympathetic. First it was the drought at Douglas. Fortunately it has now been broken, and the people are getting more water. But once the hon. member starts telling you about the difficulties there, one feels more like crying than thinking of a solution to the problems. However, we are doing our best to be of assistance to them.

†The hon. member for Mooi River referred to the White Papers. I shall discuss with the department what the hon. member has said. We may be able to improve the position. We may not have looked at it from that angle previously. I must say, however, that these White Papers are not specifically for the edification of members of Parliament only. They are for the edification of the regions concerned, the general public and the engineers. If we do not print them in the way we do, we may find that we are told that this is not a full picture of the position and asked why so we not give all the details. I can foresee difficulties in that regard. The hon. member has however made a positive suggestion and I shall discuss it with the department. Maybe we can change the way we are doing it at the moment.

*The hon. member for Moorreesburg discussed the Berg River-Saldanha scheme, on which R42 million has already been spent. He set out the dreams which were dreamed there very clearly. The hon. member for Piketberg also referred to that. The scheme has now become a reality, and the public does not realize what a tremendous task has been accomplished. He asked that the matter be explained more clearly over the radio and on television. I can tell him that it was a vast undertaking. Those hon. members who accompanied us on a visit to the tunnels in the Theewaterkloof—we could not visit everything—will agree that what has been achieved there is impressive. I undertake to have a little talk with the authorities who control the other matters. I think there were interesting television programmes on the Orange River and the P. K. le Roux schemes in the past, and perhaps we could ask those people to compile a programme on the schemes here in the Western Cape.

The hon. member also discussed the price of water, and I do not want to elaborate on that any further.

I have little time left, Sir. The hon. member for De Aar expressed his gratitude in connection with the P. K. le Roux dam. He asked when the culvert under the river would be constructed. Unfortunately I cannot give him a definite reply. I shall try to give him this information as soon as possible. I want to express my appreciation for the very interesting speech which he made, a speech in which he brought the international status of the department into prominence a little.

As regards the International Commission on Large Dams I also want to mention that, as the hon. member said, they will meet here in October. They held a meeting in Mexico in 1976, and it was decided there to come to South Africa this year. Subsequently certain countries, Russia in particular—I want to mention this here—tried to influence the delegates from all the countries to reverse that decision. When we found out last year that the Russian representative was writing to delegates throughout the world and trying to persuade them to revise the Mexico decision, the Secretary of the department took action, and I encouraged him. A meeting was in fact held in Austria at which the position was revised. But the Secretary, zealous as he was, wrote letters to the delegates furnishing them with all the particulars. The result was that the Russians were outvoted by something like 32/15 or 32/13, I am not certain. Dr. Kriel will know. However, it was a big margin and it was as a result of the fact that we also made propaganda to bring these people out to South Africa. This is another demonstration of what lengths these people go to in an attempt to cause problems in a country. I want to thank the hon. member for having referred to this matter, as well as to the various cases in which the department asserts itself in the international sphere. As far as our neighbouring States are concerned, I shall on a subsequent occasion perhaps have a little more to say in regard to this matter because it is important to know what we have achieved in this connection.

The hon. member for Humansdorp referred to irrigation boards. He referred to the fact that they receive a 33⅓% subsidy. He also referred to water rates, and indicated that one needs a sound training and sound administration for the operation of irrigation schemes. In reply to his request that the farmers themselves should have more say in decision-making, I think—and my department is working on this—that we should ascertain, throughout the country, whether it is not possible in certain cases for the irrigation boards and the local communities to take over the management of these schemes to an increasing extent. It cannot be done overnight but we are working on it. The more closely one involves these people, the more responsibility one places on their shoulders, the greater their realization of the problems involved and of the value of water. At present I sometimes get the impression that they merely keep on saying: The State has to provide water, and it has to be cheap.

The hon. member for Caledon told us about the fantastic work being done by the Groenland Irrigation Board here in Grabouw. He told us about the rates which they pay, and the money which they have invested in that scheme. That is a particularly good example of vitality and of assistance rendered to the department in this matter.

The hon. member for Somerset East made a plea for fresh water fish. I just want to tell him that this is a matter which is now receiving a great deal of attention. However, it is not a task for my department as such. It is more the responsibility, perhaps, of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I am sorry that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture is not present at the moment. I know that they are giving attention to this matter in the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. The other aspect of the matter is that the dams have in fact been handed over to the provinces for recreation purposes. The large dams have already been handed over, viz. the P. K. le Roux dam and the Hendrik Verwoerd dam. In the Orange Free State, the Cape Province and the Transvaal, various dams have already been handed over to the provinces concerned. It is not part of the task of the Department of Water Affairs to carry out experiments with fish and so on. We hope that they will do it, or otherwise the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. Then there is also the Sea Fisheries Division of the Department of Industries. I think there is legislation on its way, or legislation was already envisaged for this year, in connection with the part these departments play in inland fisheries. The figures mentioned by the hon. member for Somerset East, particularly as far as the production in Israel is concerned, are very impressive. To achieve that protein production out of that quantity of water is certainly something we cannot easily overlook. The recreational facilities at the dams are of course a matter which are now the responsibility of the provinces, and the Department of Sport and Recreation is rendering assistance in this connection.

I conclude with the inquiry concerning the pipeline to the Kalahari made by the hon. member for Prieska. I want to thank him for his approach when he said that we should also look behind us. I have already told him that it is the policy of my department, and mine as well, not only to proceed with ambitious future schemes, but that we also try to consolidate what has already been accomplished. This is difficult to achieve everywhere, but we are trying to do so. In connection with this Kalahari pipeline, I shall obtain more particulars and keep him informed. I recall, however, that according to the details previously made available it was economically justified in certain cases, while it certainly could not be justified in others.

This is perhaps the question mentioned by the hon. member for Mooi River as well, viz. that at some time or other we shall have to decide what is justified and what is not. I am very sorry that, according to my information now at my disposal, those schemes are not economically justified if the benefit-cost ratio is taken into consideration. We have other rural irrigation schemes where the advantages are far greater and in regard to which we have already made a start.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that I have now touched briefly upon most of the matters raised here. I want to content myself with that. Once again I want to express my appreciation for the positive contribution we have received so far.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully to what the hon. the Minister had to say about the water tariffs. I also have something to say in that connection, but I shall not contradict him.

I do want to express the hope that while the very expensive schemes are now nearing completion in the Western Cape, cognizance will be taken in the future of the relation between the price of water and what the soil is able to carry or produce, even if there has to be a revaluation from time to time.

I just want to mention that a friend of mine who exports fruit recently said to me, “My farm is now worth R500 000 in terms of the prices our products fetch overseas, and if there were to be a blockade, it would be worth R100 000.” He said this to me in the light of the fact that he must know how to bequeath his land and property to his children so that they too may have a future. One does not want to be pessimistic, but there could be a complete change in the value of one ha of land in relation to the value and price of the product. One would like to point out that a measure of elasticity, a measure of adaptation, will very probably be required from time to time to keep the matter on a completely realistic basis. I now remember that I also wanted to express my thanks for a number of things, but I shall do that later, because it is a very long list and my time may run out. My thank you list is much longer than that of other hon. members.

The hon. member for Piketberg and the hon. member for Moorreesburg referred to the water position in the Western Cape, and I listened to their remarks with appreciation. It was actually after the 1961 census that we discovered that our region was losing its people. Those figures brought us the shocking news that we were being depopulated to such an extent that we were losing some of our best talent, that the attraction of the north to which the hon. the Minister referred was making itself felt on us, and that our industrialists were moving there because there was a cheaper and more regular supply of labour and because power was cheaper since they were close to the markets. There are many other reasons as well which I need not mention. As far as agriculture is concerned, the outlet for products was moving to the north. This was when we began to think and began to urge the introduction of a comprehensive water plan for the Western Cape, so that our towns could develop and so that our export products could improve in quality and our yield per ha could be increased.

I once went to Mr. P. K. le Roux with a deputation from that very region to which the hon. the Minister referred, the part of my constituency where export apples are produced. The leader of the deputation was the late Mr. John Molteno, the chairman of the Deciduous Fruit Board. He was not very bilingual, but he explained to the hon. the Minister in broken Afrikaans that the winter permaine apple looked like white hanepoot that year. It was a very dry year and the export quality of those apples was rock bottom. The results are there now and we know what can be expected now that the 6 000 ha of land owned by just over 100 farmers has a water supply.

In the other part of my constituency, only 25% of the total population consists of Whites, while the Coloured people make up 66,7%. It is quite different from the average ratio in the Western Cape. There, fortunately or unfortunately, people are disposed to lift their eyebrows at someone who is always knocking at the door of the State for assistance. I do not say this is right or wrong. I only say it is a fact. They are not keen to place themselves under obligations. They like to boast of the fact that a number of generations are living together at the same address and that the land they have inherited may not be sold, and this type of thing. In the offices of one of my neighbours hangs an extract from a speech of mine which I made in the Other Place when he received the trophy for the best-planned farm. The Director of the Agricultural Technical Services, who presented the trophy, said at the end of the ceremony: “This man did not ask for a cent by way of a subsidy.” I cut it out and sent it to him and he framed it and hung it in his office with great pride.

This attitude has caused us to lose a great deal in the past. However, it is not too late. For this reason I now want to ask the hon. the Minister and his department to give some attention to us in the future from a socioeconomic point of view. We want to plead for drinking water for our livestock. We want to make many people happy with a small amount of water, because we have to switch over from grain production to stock farming and we have to make our agriculture and our industry more export-orientated, because the more expensive labour in the South, the high railway tariffs and the expensive feed we have to transport for our livestock from the north are factors which will make things difficult for us in the future. When we are able to offer a better product and when we can introduce a livestock watering scheme for the Rûens area, which has been neglected for many years, we shall have a longer list of things for which to say thank you.

The Caledon Municipality is very grateful. The hon. the Minister was very accommodating towards them and very obliging in connection with the development there. The Elandskloof distribution system is making good progress and a fine amount appears in the budget. Then there is also the Eikenhof scheme to which the hon. the Minister referred and which he personally opened this year. With this I have come to the end of my thank you list. I thought it better to make my requests before expressing my thanks; I did not want to take a chance by doing it the other way round.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to endorse what was said by the hon. member for Caledon, or should I say the hon. gentleman? I am not sure how I should address him, but I suppose I shall keep to the hon. member, for that is what we are used to. I also want to support him in his request to the hon. the Minister.

The Rûens area of Caledon, Bredasdorp and Swellendam probably presents the finest opportunity for the expansion of wool production in the whole country, and together with wool production also the production of mutton. For that reason I believe I should support the hon. member very strongly in his request, for as far as wool production is concerned, we have an export product as well. Therefore I believe it to be of cardinal importance for that area that water for livestock should be made available as soon as possible.

I should also like to endorse the remarks made by other hon. members in their commendation of these reports we have received, and I should like to include the report of the Water Research Commission. I should like to congratulate the department and the hon. the Minister on it. Since the hon. the Minister is a former Tukkie, perhaps one should congratulate him on something else as well. [Interjections.] I am especially grateful for the fact that his Vote is under discussion today, because I know he is revelling in the success they had on Saturday. Even though it will not be repeated, I nevertheless want to congratulate him on it.

While I was reading the report of the Water Research Commission, I was impressed by the tremendous task which had been entrusted to this commission. One is also impressed by the large number of projects with which the commission is assisting and which it is engaged in. I want to make particular mention of the task which the commission has in respect of the co-ordination of water research in this country. I want to say without fear of contradiction that if there is one thing which our country cannot afford it is unnecessary duplication of research. We are only too inclined in this country—in agriculture we have often experienced this—to duplicate research. In terms of manpower and funds we really cannot afford this, so one is grateful for the work which is done by this commission with regard to co-ordination.

Over and above the Commission’s task of co-ordination, I find it interesting that priorities can also be set with regard to research and that the funds can then be channelled in directions where it is needed most. The establishment of the CRDC, the Coordinating Research and Development Committee, and the study groups is also a very interesting development. These committees and the study groups can assist the commission in determining priorities and providing for research where it is necessary.

In this respect I should like to refer to one research project, the one dealing with water management and the treatment of effluent in the textile industry. I should like to thank the commission for giving its attention to this matter. A number of years ago I advocated the provision of funds for research concerning the pollution of our water by industries, especially with regard to wool processing. At the moment, only about 10% of our wool production is processed in this country. This matter is receiving more and more attention and I want to tell you that there is a very strong possibility and the idea is being considered in many circles that we should process our wool further in this country. By doing so we could achieve a great deal, and I just want to mention a few advantages. We could save a lot with regard to export, especially as far as freight is concerned. Since our wool has an average clean yield of approximately 57% to 58%, you can understand how much money we can save in freight simply by washing the wool. There is a very strong feeling among producers that our wool should be processed further in this country. This is also an important idea, because if one processes a product further, one is using one’s expertise in doing so and one is in fact exporting one’s expertize. I therefore want to advocate and emphasize that we should process our wool further in this country, for at the same time we would be creating more job opportunities for people and therefore considerably increasing our earnings in foreign exchange.

Mr. Chairman, in its report the commission mentions the fact that wool processing and especially the washing of wool naturally involves tremendous water pollution. In my humble opinion, our research should be aimed at reclaiming the wool fat which is a major cause of the pollution. Because you probably know, Sir, that wool fat is a very important commercial product in our country. It is used in several cosmetic products, as well as in washing powders and in a host of other products. It is of great commercial value to our country and even in this I see an important export product. For that reason I believe that we should first reclaim the wool fat—and the commission mentions this in its report—before the sand and other dirt is removed.

Mr. Chairman, I therefore think it is essential that research in this respect should be expedited, because, as I said at the beginning, I believe that the further processing of our wool as well as of mohair should enjoy priority at the moment. It is therefore possible that we shall have to take the processing of our wool much further in the future. Perhaps the commission should also consider sending a research official to major wool processing countries sooner or later, so that he may study the research which has been conducted there and the successes which have already been achieved, especially in a country such as Japan, and apply it here. Perhaps the commission has already given attention to this, but I nevertheless mention it to the hon. the Minister.

In the few moments I have left, I should like to say a few words about boring for ground-water. As far as I am concerned, this is a hardy annual, because I talk about it every year, perhaps because I come from a region where ground-water is very important to the livestock. In the report of the department I read that the department’s water drills have sunk 3 142 boreholes with a combined depth of 165 224 metres, but the important thing is that almost 70% of these boreholes were successful. I think it is a great achievement to have a 70% success rate in sinking boreholes. I have also studied the statistics in connection with subsidized boring works by private contractors. Unfortunately the report does not mention—I do not know whether I have overlooked it, but Dr. Kriel can inform me about it later—how many of these boreholes were successful and how many were unsuccessful, and I consider that to be very important. You will remember, Sir, that I appealed last year that we should keep statistics of all boreholes sunk in this country. The hon. the Minister told me at that stage that this was not really possible, but I nevertheless feel that we can keep statistics of boreholes subsidized by the department, and that we should be guided by this in our research.

There is just one more matter, Mr. Chairman, and that is in connection with the drilling of experimental boreholes, i.e. those of approximately 2 to 216 inches in diameter. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am going to concentrate mainly on matters affecting my constituency. In the first place, I should like, on behalf of the farmers of the largest State water scheme in South Africa, to convey our sincere thanks to our hon. Minister and his department for a further appropriation of R1½ million in the current financial year for the building of drainage canals and outlets to combat the problems of salinization and waterlogged soil. I also want to convey a special word of congratulations and thanks to the local administration engineer and his team of workers who have built approximately 18 kilometres of drainage canals since July 1976. The canals have a depth of approximately 2 metres and they have been built at an average cost of approximately R45 per metre, as against an estimated cost of R67,5 per metre. I consider this to be a splendid achievement for which we want to pay tribute to those people.

In spite of the splendid results which have been obtained with the system of internal drainage, as well as with the building of drainage canals, individual farmers all over the area are still experiencing serious problems as a result of mineralization and waterlogged soil. Because of the size of the area and the wide distribution of the places where mineralization and waterlogged soil occur, and the resulting impossibility of sending teams of workers from one farm to another over a distance of several kilometres, individual farmers are still having the greatest difficulties with waterlogged soil and mineralization. The farmer cannot drain internally because there are no outlets or drainage canals.

At the moment, loans and subsidies are only granted on the cost of internal drainage. My plea is that in such cases, where a farmer cannot go on producing and is faced with the prospect of ruin—there are such cases—loans and subsidies should also be granted to such a farmer for the cost of pipelines to the nearest drainage canal or outlet outside his premises. This must be done on the clear understanding that such loans and subsidies will not be subject to the condition that such pipelines have to follow the shortest route to the drainage canal. This could mean that the farmer would have to route his drainage pipeline through his neighbour’s land. This would never work. The shortest distance along boundaries and servitude lands can be a condition, however. If in such cases a pump installation is necessary to save the farmer, the cost of the pump must be included for loan arid subsidy purposes.

If such loans and subsidies are granted, it can mean that farmers in a bloc of farms could jointly lay such a subsidized drainage pipe. This could mean a great saving, because such a pipeline would be cheaper than a cemented drainage canal.

Sir, I should like to raise another matter, namely the question of greater scheduling on the name of a single farmer. Initially, the individual farmer was scheduled for only 30 morgen. This is the standard size of a single farm or a holding. Later, the scheduling was increased to 60 morgen per individual farmer. This brought great relief. But at the moment, if a farmer wants to expand to more than 60 morgen of scheduled land, which is now regarded as essential and has been proved to be the most economical farming unit, and he wants the third holding scheduled, he has to register it in the name of his son, daughter, wife, or—there are such cases—in the name of his father- or mother-in-law. This naturally creates tremendous problems. For this reason, I request that serious consideration be given to increasing the scheduling from 60 morgen to 90 morgen per farmer. If this is done, the individual farmer will be able to register three holdings in his name without running the risk of losing scheduling.

I should also like to refer to the question of increased water tax. For the new financial year, an increase of 33% has been announced, which amounts to an increase from R19,44 per hectare to R25,88 per hectare. I want to say at once that the farmers wholeheartedly support and accept the principle and the policy that an old State water scheme should be self-supporting in respect of administration and maintenance costs. I want to add and make it clear at once that an increase of 33% in water taxation, together with all the other increases in production costs, has come as a tremendous shock to the farmers of Vaalharts. Sir, you can understand that an increase of 33% in water taxation, together with all the other increases in the cost of production, came as a heavy blow to the farmer with a limited income from a farm of 30 morgen. We should look for a moment at the position with regard to the revenue from water taxation as against the expenditure on administrative costs and maintenance costs at Vaalharts. According to the annual report, the expenditure on administration and maintenance costs was R1 132 190. With a scheduled area of 31 814 hectares, the expenditure amounts to R35,5 per hectare in respect of administrative and maintenance costs. That is to say, a water tax of R19,44 covers 54,8% of the administrative and maintenance costs. Let us suppose there is an escalation of 10% for the 1977-’78 financial year. The present water tax of R25,8 per hectare would then cover 66% of the increased administrative and maintenance costs. However, I am convinced that instead of an escalation in the administrative and maintenance costs, there may be a substantial reduction in these costs. I shall mention only one sphere in which such a saving can be effected, namely the leasing of the servitude lands to the farmers and the consequent devolution upon the farming community of the task of keeping clean the canals and servitude lands. Sir, in this way I believe a saving of at least R120 000 a year could be effected in respect of administrative and maintenance costs. If this were to happen, the present water tax of R25,88 per hectare would cover 81% of the administrative and maintenance costs, if we proceeded from the premise that they would be the same as those for the 1976-’77 financial year. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Kimberley North’s complaints about an increase of 33⅓% in the price of water. I think that the people under that irrigation scheme should be very grateful indeed at the prices they are paying for water in this day and age they are getting water at very cheap rates. I realize that a 33⅓% increase is quite considerable in view of the general increase in farm costs, but I think the hon. member must realize that in relation to many schemes which are on the go at present they are still getting water at a remarkably cheap price. There are not going to be many occasions in the future when anybody anywhere will be able to buy water that cheaply again.

I wish to refer very briefly to two matters the hon. the Minister replied to in his speech, viz. his reference to Swaziland and the Pongolapoort Dam. Had the hon. Minister’s predecessor not misinformed the House about the attitude of the Swazi Government we might never have made such a song and dance about this. He said categorically that there was no trouble with the Swaziland Government, yet we now hear that it was only two weeks ago that the hon. the Minister had further discussion with them about this.

With regard to water from the Orange River for the Ciskei I would like to utter a solemn warning that it is most necessary for the Republican Government to prove its good intentions when development of this sort is suggested. I understand from the Ciskei authorities that they are quite prepared to pay an economic rate for the water, but they do say categorically that if they do not get that water the schemes they have in mind are absolutely doomed. Obviously, there are a lot of calls on this water from the Republic itself, but I think we have to realize that it is our responsibility to do so and, in fact, the future welfare of South Africa, depends upon making some of our very scarce resources available to underdeveloped areas.

I now wish to go on to other matters which are of particular concern to conservationists. I wish to raise three matters, all of which I think are of considerable importance. The first one concerns the dam on the Umfolozi. I do not know how far the department has got with its planning in this respect. There are a couple of items in the annual report regarding this matter. The one deals with an aerial survey and the other with a preliminary foundation examination. I would like to know whether any decision has been reached as to where this dam is to be sited. As the hon. the Minister knows there was considerable disquiet among conservationists about the siting of this dam and I think many of them are very anxious to hear the latest news. We know that several possible sites were being considered. If a decision has been made I certainly hope that the department has consulted the conservationists.

Order! Is the hon. member for Sasolburg reading a newspaper? The hon. member for Orange Grove may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I specifically resent a newspaper being read in my time!

The second matter in regard to conservation that I want to raise, is something I have raised on several occasions during the past two years. It has to do with the canal through the Etosha Game Park. I wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether plans have been finalized yet. At the hon. the Minister’s invitation I accompanied a representative of one of the main conservationist bodies in South Africa to have a look at a plan made available by the department and I must say that this gentleman went away far from satisfied with the suggested new plan. His comment was that it was an ecological disaster and he hoped that something could be done to avoid the necessity for this canal right through Etosha. I realize that the department has improved the plan in that it now cuts off a much smaller section of the reserve than it did before, but I must tell the hon. the Minister that it is still considered by ecologists to be totally unsatisfactory. If necessary, and I know that cost must come into this, additional money must be spent. I would also like to place on record the strong feelings of the people of South West Africa themselves about this scheme. As the hon. the Minister knows the nature conservation department of South West Africa has objected strongly to the plan and I would urge that it be not proceeded with as presently framed.

The third matter that is causing disquiet so far as conservationists are concerned, is the proposed dam on the Palmiet River, the Hangklip Dam. I realize that water supplies to the Western Cape and Cape Town itself in the future are, in spite of our Berg River scheme, going to be inadequate and that somehow or other water will have to be found. But I think we must realize too that if we go ahead with the planning of this dam on the Palmiet River, we are going to do damage to an area which is very important in the eye of the conservationists. I would like to quote Dr. Tony Hall, who is the Chairman of the Coordinating Council for Nature Conservation in the Cape, who says that this dam “would flood a huge and unique area of riverine vegetation, a mixture of forest and protea fynbos and marsh of complexity and interest”. He says that the danger to the rich indigenous vegetation is extreme. This area is unique in many ways in terms of vegetation. It has yellowwood trees and rooi els and it is countryside that can never be replaced. I think it is very important that the department take great care in disturbing this area to do so to the absolute minimum. I hear rumblings from an hon. member over there that this matter has to do with forestry. The land is owned by the Department of Forestry, but the intention is that the Department of Water Affairs will build a dam which will flood this land owned by the Department of Forestry. I understand that the Department of Forestry itself is worried about the implications of the building of this dam. Perhaps the hon. the Minister, wearing his other hat, may take a different viewpoint, because I believe that the two departments are not necessarily at one over the plans for this area.

Finally in regard to this whole question of conservation, I wish to say that I believe that it is very important for the department to conduct a major public relations exercise when it comes to dealing with conservation questions. I realize that technical people tend to get very impatient with people who believe in the necessity for conservation in that they believe that matters of technical importance must take precedence, but there are thousands of South Africans who feel very strongly about conservation. I believe it is in the department’s own interests to see that these people are kept informed, that they are consulted on an on-going basis and that everything possible is done to accommodate them when they do have problems. I believe that the department has not done an adequate job in this field in the past.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has had a very restful chat with the hon. the Minister, and I am sure the hon. the Minister will reply to him in due course.

I want to steer the debate to the east, which is an exceptional part of our country. The morning stars rise there …

And wisdom comes from the East.

Yes, and wisdom comes from the East. If we look at the map that forms an annexure to the published report of the Petrick Commission on our coal resources, one can see where the rich coal resources of this country are situated, the great source of our energy reserves. These resources could not have been exploited if it had not been for this particular department. In the most recent past we have had the development of the new installation at Secunda, with the various phases of the waterworks that supply water to that project. Now I must concede, Sir, that this is not as spectacular as the Theewaterkloof scheme, but it is more dramatic. I shall explain why I say that. In the White Paper tabled in May 1976, and in which the first phase of the Usutu-Vaal scheme was announced, the Department of Water Affairs undertook to supply water to Secunda in October 1979. The latest estimate is to the effect that it will be possible to supply water to Secunda in October 1978. The cost structure of Secunda was estimated at more than R2 000 million. If it had not been possible to supply water in time, it would have meant a loss of interest to the amount of R20 million a month. That is an enormous amount, and now we find here that the department will be able to supply the water a year earlier. There is a possibility of water being available even before October 1978. Sir, when we talk about achievements, I think this is a particularly brilliant achievement on the part of our department. It was an ambitious task. Previous speakers have congratulated our young engineers of the department on their work and I should like to associate myself with them and thank these people.

These phases of the Usutu-Vaal scheme form an extensive network of water stretching across the highlands of the highveld. The water from various rivers is collected here to be deposited at a central point (or points). It is interesting to note that our department was able to tap water from Natal to supply the Vaal Dam from the Tugela scheme, so that we could tap water from the Vaal River for Secunda and feed it over to Witbank. One might say that this is a cross-connection of water from the catchment areas of the Indian Ocean to the catchment areas of the Atlantic Ocean. This was done to make this industrial complex with its growth potential a reality.

Together with the great industrial development we expect there, we find that further power stations are being envisaged, among them Ilanga, which should be completed by 1981, and certain other power points with code names such as BB in 1986; CC in 1989 and DD in 1991. When the latter three come into operation, their volume of power production—their power generation— will exceed the total power that can be generated in the Republic today. These points require water, and in these schemes provision is made for water. But these developments attract people—White and Black and Brown—and wherever there are people, water is also necessary for other purposes, and not only for industrial use. We need water for domestic use and for recreational purposes.

Near this highland we have Lebowa, and adjoining Lebowa we have the Southern Ndebele group. We should very much like to ask our department today how much progress has been made in co-operation with the Department of Plural Relations, the interdepartmental committee that plans and directs the distribution of water among the various states, in the planning for the building of the dam in the Olifants River, which can supply water to the capital of Lebowa. In a White Paper tabled today, we see how the development has progressed in the reservoir complex in the Southern Ndebele territory. This is very interesting. We see that a reservoir is being planned near Bundu Eden, if hon. members know that area. That water is very essential, because we can foresee the development of those areas. There is a dense concentration of people in the Lebowa territory situated close to the highland of industrial development, namely Witbank, Middelburg, Bethal and the Ermelo complex. Those people also need recreation. That water and that climate offer an ideal opportunity for the creation of the facilities there, facilities that will be greatly in demand.

But now I put the question, Mr. Chairman: Who is going to handle the operation of these water resources for those Black fatherlands? Should we not start planning now, already, so that such people will be available? In the annual report of the department, it is clearly stated, inter alia—

We have a shortage of operating staff, hydrologists and engineers. We have to obtain people to operate these dams or these waters for those Black territories. I do not have the statistics available to indicate how many students are engaged in training to undertake these tasks for those territories. I want to make an appeal to the Governments of Black fatherlands to make bursaries available to encourage Black students whom we can utilize in this development—students with the ability or the aptitude or interest in these fields. By training and making them proficient, we can enable them to operate their own dams for their own needs and for their own people.

Mr. Chairman, if I express the view tonight that water is going to become increasingly scarce, I am really not saying anything new. In virtually all parts of the world where congresses, symposiums and conferences on water are held today, the scarcity of water is constantly being emphasized. It is really a cry of distress that is being heard in the world today. Water is becoming scarcer and scarcer. Many years ago, when I was still a student at university, our lecturer in water law, Prof. Morty Malherbe, told us: “Chaps, you must never confuse the concept of a water emergency, because a water emergency in South Africa means something altogether different to a water emergency in Holland. Here it means a water famine, and there it means an excess of water”. But conditions have changed so much today that that concept is no longer valid; because at virtually all congresses all over the world today, whether at the congress held in West Berlin, or the one held in the Argentine last year, the emphasis was placed on the scarcity of water and distress signals were sent out. With us, it is a shortage in quantity; in those countries it is often a lack of quality owing to pollution that has set in. That new concept of a water emergency has also come into prominence now in those countries where there is an abundance of water. Only recently, it was reported as follows in the German periodical Der Tagesspiegel in connection with the conference held in the Argentine—

This stresses the problem we are facing. It is such a pity—and the hon. the Minister also referred to this—that the people in South Africa still waste so much water. It is something that is not done only by the town dweller, the city dweller and the irrigation farmers—everybody is guilty of this immense wastage of water. And according to statistics, 93% of all Whites will be city dwellers in the year 2000; 92% of all Indians, and 86% of all Coloureds will be city dwellers, and 75% of the Black people will also be town and city dwellers by then. These are all people to whom we must start making an appeal now already to have respect for water. Flat dwellers should not waste water on a large scale merely because they do not have to pay for it directly. As I have said, we are all guilty of wasting water.

I also want to refer to a matter mentioned by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, namely our ground water resources. To us who live in areas far removed from huge water schemes, who do not live near big rivers, groundwater is an enormously important source. And in this regard I want to read from a book published during our Water Year; and I think we ought to have a water year every ten years so that the importance of water can repeatedly be brought to the notice of our people. In connection with groundwater, it is stated here—

Now I want to use this as a preamble to come to a problem of one of the towns in my constituency, Zeerust, which is in fact, dependent on groundwater. It so happened that in a White Paper published in 1971, the town of Zeerust was designated as one of the most important growth points in regard to industrial development for the Tswana national group. I do not think there is a town that is more strategically situated than this town is as a buffer town on the borders of the homeland Bophuthatswana, and within an hour and a half’s drive from the capital of Botswana. When a White Paper was submitted in connection with the Upper Molopo Government Regional Water Supply Scheme last years, it appeared that this scheme was established to a great extent to* supply water to Mafeking and the growing capital of Botswana. In the area delimited as the Upper Molopo subterranean water control area, various sources were indicated—the Molopo spring and various other springs, but also, among others, the Malmanie spring which has indeed traditionally been accepted for years as the water source of Zeerust—and Zeerust celebrated its centenary a few years ago already—and of the surrounding mines, the industries, and the irrigation farmers in that area. There is now a feeling of unrest and uncertainty on the part of the people of that area, because the relevant water sources are also involved or mentioned in this scheme. They feel uneasy because their water might possibly be used for that particular area. I want to say at once that the hon. the Minister has already reassured us in the course of interviews we had with him, when he said— and I quote from the minutes recorded at the time—that water resources in the Republic are not proportionally distributed and that they cannot be reserved exclusively for particular regions and for particular consumers—

Mr. Chairman, now I want to say that in this we read the hon. the Minister’s assurance that regardless of what may happen in future, Zeerust will decidedly not be let down by the Government in the implementation of its plans for an intended industrial area. We endorse the Government’s policy of the establishment of border industries, and we know that the town of Zeerust and the community there will be able to rely on the support of the hon. the Minister. We trust that the Malmanie sources will indeed be retained and will be available to the town council of Zeerust.

It is difficult to reassure people who feel uneasy, and the town council is therefore now coming forward with a plan they have been considering for a long time, namely to request the hon. the Minister to institute a water board for that area so that in that respect, too, the town council, the mines and industries can undertake advance planning and estimates, and so that confidence can be created on their part and on the part of future industrialists and people who want to establish industries in that area.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to associate myself with hon. members who have expressed their thanks towards the hon. the Minister and the department for work that has been done. I also want to express thanks on behalf of my own constituency for work that has been done there. I am thinking here of the Assen area near Vrede, where we have the flood beacons of the Vaal Dam that gave rise to many problems in the past and, to be quite honest, still give rise to problems at times of great floods.

We have just heard from the hon. the Minister that new developments that are in the offing, will probably lead to more effective flood control in the Vaal Dam, that the flood-gates will be modified, and that more effective control will be exercised.

In the second place, I want to express my thanks for the Heilbron water supply project. In that regard, too, I want to say that we are grateful for what has been done there. Just permit me to say in general, that I think we can all say here today that the work that has been done as far as irrigation and water schemes in South Africa are concerned has been done on the basis of long-term planning. The dams have not been constructed on an ad hoc basis, but have actually been built to meet a long-term need—hence our appreciation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss something else that has given rise to problems in our constituency in particular during recent years since the building of the Vaal Dam. This is harmful water plants. In South Africa we encounter mainly four types of harmful water plants. Before discussing these, I first want to thank Dr. Kriel and his department for the information they gave me in this regard.

Firstly, there is the water hyacinth, which was a great problem in the Hartebeespoort Dam. Last year, more than 50% of the surface of the Hartebeespoort Dam was covered with water hyacinths. Those of you who have driven past there will remember that it looked quite impressive when more than half the dam was covered with these green plants. We also know that these hyacinths were harmful to water sport, camping, etc. While, of course, it had other minor and indirect benefits like the limitation of evaporation or the restriction of the growth of algae, it was generally more harmful than beneficial. The department conducted experiments and sprayed these plants, and I want to congratulate them, because this spraying was virtually 80% to 90% successful without any particular harm to the fish in the dam.

Then we have the Kariba weed, which is actually not very harmful in South Africa, according to the records, but which has made its appearance in a few Eastern Transvaal rivers and, incidentally, also in the Hartebeespoort Dam catchment area.

In the third place one encounters the water millefoil, which is found to a limited extent in the Berg River and also in some of our Natal rivers. But in regard to this, too, no serious nuisance has arisen.

However, I want to return to the harmful water plant that is actually creating problems in our area, namely the alga. The alga is a plant that is found on a worldwide scale on surface water that contains nitrates and phosphates. This plant appears mainly in summer because it is dependent, upon the process of photosynthesis for its growth. It is part of the general ecology of the water environment and it is also an inherent, indissoluble part of the food chain or food source in water life, and for that reason we shall always have it with us. There are actually two types of algae, namely the floating alga, which consists of a unicellular growth and appears in small bodies or in floating colonies, and the Bentic alga, which actually has a filiform root and can attach itself to the bottom of a dam or, for the most part, to the walls of canals. Its greatest disadvantage is that it blocks canals. The type we encounter in the Vaal Dam is the floating alga. This appears in two different forms, again, namely the green alga and the bluegreen alga. The one that creates most problems for us is the blue-green alga. As I have already said, this alga needs nitrates and phosphates in order to grow luxuriantly. And when water flows into the dam from sewer drains or in the form of industrial effluent, or flood-water during the rainy season from agricultural lands that may be well fertilized and may contain many nutrients, and this is followed by plenty of sunshine so that the process of photosynthesis can take place, then a very sudden growth of this alga takes place in the dam. When this alga grows, certain poisonous substances are secreted into the water. All of us have probably heard of that and have also found in the past that many cattle have died on the banks of these dams. According to the experts, it is also possible that this may be the cause of gastro-enteritis and certain skin diseases in people. However, the greatest problem in this regard is that when this mass growth that has taken place begins to die, it withdraws the oxygen from the water, and this process of decomposition gives out a terrible stench.

Mr. Chairman, you will probably agree with me that at our small towns like Oranjeville, and also in the area of the hon. member for Sasol, there are excellent holiday resorts on the banks of the splendid Vaal Dam. But if we have to keep enduring this intolerable stench for up to 14 days at a time, as has happened in the past, the popularity of these holiday resorts is very adversely affected and these people will find themselves in a very difficult situation.

Mr. Chairman, we want to thank the department, because this was a matter they had to investigate. In the past, they combated this plant by dragging along bags filled with blue vitriol—copper sulphate—but this was not very successful. They then undertook research and found that they could combat the algae by spraying these areas, and I want to thank them for that.

But, Sir, you know how things go in Government departments, and I am not blaming anybody, because this is simply the position. One first has to go through all the red tape before one can accomplish anything. However, I want to appeal to our department to keep the spraying apparatus handy so that when these conditions arise, we need not allow chaos to prevail for 14 days or longer before we spray the area. As a matter of interest, I just want to mention that for reasons not yet known to the department, the growth of algae takes place mainly in the Wilge River leg of the Vaal Dam, and not so extensively in the Vaal River leg as yet.

I should like to conclude, Mr. Chairman, by making this urgent appeal to the department—and I am sure that in future they will do this for us so that we can also protect this beautiful part of our country.

Mr. Chairman, it was interesting to hear the reference the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, made to the problem of the water hyacinths at Hartebeespoort Dam, because this is a subject I also intended to deal with today but in a little more detail.

First of all, this whole subject of water is a very interesting one and I would like to start off by getting it into some sort of perspective. To a scientist, it is H2O. It is interesting to note that it is represented in its scientific form on the cover of the Water Research Commission’s Report. It almost appears as if they are taking a hint from our Chief Whip who is becoming quite well-known for his diatomic molecular structures, and I must say that it is very nice to see the Government coming right on this matter. It only requires a couple more atoms here for this to be the federal concept, and then another molecule to be the confederal concept. We are very pleased to see this approach.

But, Mr. Chairman, water, to a scientist, H₂O, to a farmer, rain from heaven, to a child, an awful lot of fun, but to us who deliberate and legislate over its collection, purification, distribution and use, it is just plain water.

And a subject for discussion.

Yes, indeed. It was interesting to note the chain of events that took place regarding the Hartebeespoort Dam. It seems as though the water hyacinth was first spotted there something like 10 years ago, and in reply to a question by an Opposition member to Parliament last year, it was indicated that various amounts had been spent from 1969 to 1976 to deal with this problem. It amounted to approximately R29 000 that had been spent over those years. But it is interesting to note that while that money was being spent, the problem was getting worse and worse, so that as at February last year when that question was asked, something like 25% of the surface of the water had already been covered by this plant. The report of the Commission indicates that by the middle of the year 1977 approximately 55% of the water had been covered, and the indications were that by March of this year, if nothing really serious had been done, 100% of the water was going to be covered.

He said 90%.

Well, the report says possibly 100% of the water would be covered. But whether it is 90% or 100%, that is neither here nor there. This indicates a very serious problem indeed, and it certainly was not a month too early that the spraying was carried out and a very large quantity of the weed was killed. It is interesting to see that early this year only approximately 4% of the surface was covered by this weed. But the point I want to make is this, Mr. Chairman. Why did so much time elapse before any really serious action was taken? Was it just coincidence that this action was taken after a question in regard to this weed was put by an Opposition member in the House? And I think this indicates very clearly that there is a need for Opposition members, because many NP members must drive past that dam day in and day out, and I did not hear anyone of them asking questions about the infestation of the dam.

Mr. Chairman, the position, as indicated by questions put in the House this year, seems to be somewhat more serious. The problem is no longer confined, either largely or at all, to the Hartebeespoort Dam, and I would like to quote some of the other areas where this water hyacinth has been found, viz. the Bon Accord Dam, the Roodeplaat Dam, the Swartkops River, and the Vaal River in the Barrage-Parys area. In Natal it has been reported from as far south as Isipingo up to as far north as Lake St. Lucia in rivers, dams and lakes, and heavy infestations occur in the Inseleni River west of Empangeni, the lower portions of the Umgeni River and in the Shongweni Dam in the Umlaas River. To my thinking this represents a rather serious state of affairs namely that the problem has been allowed to become as severe as it appears to be, because last year, only 13 months ago, the comment was made that only the Hartebeespoort Dam was affected and possibly the Bon Accord Dam. The latter was not controlled by the State, and detailed records were not kept. It would therefore appear that there was quite a severe deterioration in the position between February last year and February this year, and I wonder whether the time has not come for the hon. the Minister to consider classifying this water hyacinth as a noxious weed and, with the success of the Hartebeespoort Dam spraying still fresh in our minds, whether a concentrated campaign should not be embarked upon immediately in view of the fact that we know this weed can spread at such an alarming rate.

I also think one should look again at the position in view of the hon. the Minister’s replies to questions and his statement that no direct action is taken by the Department of Water Affairs in cases where water hyacinth infestations occurs in rivers or in privately owned dams. This seems to be a little shortsighted. One knows how this water hyacinth spreads. One gets a flash flood, a dam overflows, a couple of little pieces of the hyacinth float down and nestle somewhere on the bank. Before one realizes it, they have spread like wild fire. I would put it to the hon. the Minister that perhaps now is the time to take steps. In answers to questions, the hon. the Minister has indicated the procedure to be followed by people who spot this weed. Obviously they are thinking about the problem. One wonders however what is being done to eradicate it in waterways other than those controlled by the State. I think now is the time for a more co-ordinated approach and a more concentrated effort to wipe this out, or, at least, to reduce the problem to one that is manageable. This can perhaps be done by biological control. In the context of biological control, I am told about a very interesting animal or a mammal—I do not know what one should actually call it but I believe it is called a dugong—that eats large quantities of this hyacinth. I am told that the use of this mammal has had considerable success in the waterways of America where they have to keep their waterways clear of a similar type of hyacinth. This animal is let loose and it eats up enormous quantities of the weed. This has enabled the people concerned to keep the waterways open. I wonder whether the time has not come for us to consider whether an animal of this nature could not be used in some of the areas where major control has been effected and where there are still small patches of the weed. The comment was made in the report of the Water Supply Commission that at this stage the conditions after spraying at Hartebeespoort Dam do not pose any threat to the fish population. Apparently the control has been very carefully monitored because no problem was noted in regard to the water either. I would say that this means no short-term problem, but in the light of the fact that these spraying activities were carried out recently, we only have short-term knowledge. But what is the long-term outcome going to be? Do we know for sure that there is going to be no long-term problem as a result of the spraying. Mr. Chairman, I feel that wherever possible, after control by spraying, biological control should be considered and wherever this is possible it should be initiated at once. I think that covers the subject very well.

I would like briefly to refer to two other subjects. As we know, we can make water go further by controlling its use and by making people more aware of the conservation of water. This is not always very successful in a country like ours where water is generally pretty cheap. I was doing some calculations and came to the interesting conclusion that in most built-up areas one can buy a ton of water for no more than 20 cents. This is drinking water, and it must surely be the cheapest commodity available today. If one considers that a person might drink 5 litres per day, that means that he has 200 days’ supply of drinking water for 20 cents or one-tenth of a cent per day. This is an incredible achievement, but how long can we keep this up7 We have either got to have more water or we have to recycle water and educate people not to waste it. In chapter 12 on page 67 of the Water Research Commission’s annual report comment is made of rainfall stimulation and of the project in the eastern Free State near Bethlehem. It is stated that in general a very favourable reaction has been observed in the farming community. If my memory serves me correctly that may be so, but I understand that there is a considerable body of people in that area that is opposed to this scheme. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell us a little more than the rather brief reference to it on page 67 of this report and whether he could perhaps indicate to us whether, if the experiments are successful, the Government will go ahead with these projects regardless of the objections of the minority. I think it is important that we should know that a large amount of water can be supplied by means of rainfall stimulation. [Time expired.]

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with a remark made by the hon. the Minister when he delivered his speech this afternoon. He said water was a scarce and expensive commodity in South Africa. We had a Water Year in 1970, and the whole objective of that year was to make our people more water-conscious. According to the facts at our disposal, that project was a resounding success, because information indicates that there has been a decrease in waste and that our industrialists have grown aware of the absolute necessity of helping to preserve the quality and availability of our water resources. The farmer, too, realizes that he will have to apply improved irrigation techniques in order to obtain optimum utilization of his water resources in his farming activities.

The success of the Water Year in instilling into the general public the realization that water is indeed a scarce commodity in South Africa was forced into the background by our energy crisis of 1974. Since 1974, that has continuously occupied our attention, with the result that we have forgotten that in our country, water is just as strategic a commodity as energy. I want to plead here tonight that all South Africans must be given a fresh awareness of the value of our water resources. The necessity for this appears from our geography. In the first place, South Africa lies in a drought belt; our rainfall is seasonal and the major part of our interior, particularly the western regions, is either arid or semi-arid. Water is therefore the lifeblood of our existence. Our cities and towns, our industries and our factories and our agricultural production are wholly dependent upon adequate water supplies. By means of the facts I am going to quote, I want to indicate exactly how scarce water is.

In the first place, we lose a vast amount of water every year. If one keeps in mind that the average flow of all our rivers is 52 000 million cubic metres a year, and if one further keeps in mind that as a result of evaporation, floodwaters and topographical factors, we only retain 3 100 million cubic metres of water in our storage dams for actual use, one comes to the alarming realization that only 6% of the total flow of our rivers is conserved for use.

Considering the growth rate of water consumption in this country, the danger exists that unless we take timely measures, that growth rate might catch up with us in time to come. During the recent past the growth rate of our water consumption has been 7% a year. If this continues unchanged, we shall need 29 300 million cubic metres of water by the year 2000. In practical terms, it means that we shall need five times the total contents of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam every year.

What is the solution to this problem, Sir? Firstly, we shall have to devise more effective methods of development and use of our water resources. Secondly, we shall have to achieve greater efficiency in the use of our existing resources; and thirdly, we shall have to find new water resources in future. Here, one immediately thinks of the sea and the desalinization of sea water for human, animal and other uses. In this very field, the Department of Water Affairs plays an immensely important role in our country. They do this principally by way of research, by constructing new dams and waterworks, by planning for the future, and controlling our existing water resources.

My own constituency, Ermelo, is a striking example of this. The hon. member for Standerton referred to the Usutu Government Water Scheme. In the past, with our high rainfall and in view of the fact that we are situated on the watershed, we had to forego the benefit of several rivers with great volumes of water flowing eastwards into the Indian Ocean. The water flowed unused into the ocean, but a number of years ago the department initiated this scheme which is now nearing completion. Two dams have already been completed, namely the Jericho Dam and the Westoe Dam, while the Morgenstond Dam is one of the dams nearing completion, as the hon. member for Standerton has said.

This water is the great artery of the development of the Eastern Transvaal highveld, of Escom’s power stations, of Sasol II, and of the municipalities and industries in that area.

I request that we should encourage our people to conserve water, and I agree wholeheartedly with the remarks by the hon. member for Marico, who insisted that we should not waste water. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that our industrialists, in particular, are very much aware of this particular problem.

They take care of that and co-operate with the department in combating the pollution of our water. I think I can also state that our irrigation farmers are very much aware of the necessity of more effective utilization of water on the farm. At this stage, most of our water is still being used by our irrigation fanners.

But, Sir, in our homes and offices and in our public buildings, too, we would do well to give some attention to water conservation. I may just mention leaking taps and water pipes; our water systems in our cloak-rooms. In those systems, water is used day and night. I believe we have sufficient skill in this country to devise and implement other systems that will require less water.

We are also aware of the fact that the Water Research Commission is engaged in research projects in these very fields. But in addition, every one of us can personally try to save water. Is it really necessary to have 12 inches of water in a bath when one can bath just as effectively in only four inches of water? Is it really necessary to stand under a shower for 15 minutes if one can feel just as refreshed within three minutes?

I request that the department, or whoever is responsible for that, should start a new information programme in regard to the importance of water conservation. I am thinking of a medium that has been available to us since 1970, namely television, which can be a powerful information medium in our hands. It is of fundamental importance to every South African that we should take proper care of our water resources. The words of the well-known little song are becoming more and more opposite: “Children, do not mess about in the water, the old people want to drink it.”

Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a refrain to the songs of praise struck up here this afternoon. In the Amatola Kloofs the department built a dam that blends spectacularly with the beautiful environment in which it is situated. The community of Stutterheim wishes to express their sincere thanks to the Department of Water Affairs for the Gubu dam. But the gratitude and joy of the community of Stutterheim are not complete, because the dam that has constantly been flowing over since its completion in 1970, has no pipeline to bring the water to the point where it is needed.

I should like the hon. the Minister to call to mind 1969 and draw his attention to the fact that White Paper S of that year did make provision for a pipeline 15 inches in diameter over a distance of 45 000 feet, leading to a reservoir with a capacity of 4 million gallons at Stutterheim. The idea was that the pipeline was to render 2,6 million gallons of unpurified water a day, plus a peak-hour load of 25%. In 1969, Parliament voted R500 000 for the pipeline and a reservoir. In 1976, the Stutterheim Municipality built a reservoir with a capacity of 7 million gallons. The municipality itself financed this reservoir, without receiving any assistance or subsidy. At present, this reservoir is being filled by means of a pumping installation that has to raise water at a very steep gradient from the Kubusi River. I have been advised by the Stutterheim Municipality that they were recently requested by the South African Railways to supply the Gazelle, Amabele, Kei Road and Peelton stations with water. Please note, Sir, that Amabele station is a junction for the Republic with the Transkei. Then the municipality has also been requested by the Administration Board of the Department of Plural Relations and Development to supply the Black residential area near Stutterheim with water. I should like to focus the hon. the Minister’s attention on an important fact, namely that the Ciskei border has now been moved right up to the Gazella railway station—that is to say, up to the municipal boundary. It is general knowledge that a Ciskeian town is being envisaged and planned along this border. It is therefore logical to accept that the Municipality of Stutterheim will have to supply its neighbours with water, even if it is only in the short term. According to projections that have been made, it has been determined that the pumping installation constructed only a short while ago can only render half of the capacity of the estimated need. A crisis is now developing here that is becoming more and more intense. I want to request the hon. the Minister, firstly, to be so good as to look into this matter, secondly, to remember that Parliament voted money for this need as long as 10 years ago, and thirdly, to render some assistance there.

I have a second matter requiring the attention of the hon. the Minister. In 1968, an irrigation board was appointed for the Kubusi River—which drains a considerable part of Stutterheim’s run-off water to the Kei River—to ensure the orderly use of the flow of that river in times of possible water shortages. I have had complaints from this board that the desired liaison between them and certain sections of the hon. the Minister’s department is lacking.

At 20h13, proceedings suspended until 20h24 to enable members to attend a division.

Mr. Chairman, as I have said, I have received complaints from the Irrigation Board that the desired liaison is lacking between them and the certain sections of the department, with the result that they do not know what the policy of the department is in respect of the Kubusi River, over which they have jurisdiction.

Let me take you back to the early ’sixties, Sir, when the department started surveying possible dam basins, examining possible foundations, and charting the valley. This was also done with a view to investigating the possibility of diverting the water of the nearby Toise River—which follows a course parallel to the Kubusi and drains another catchment area—by way of a tunnel into the Kubusi River Valley, of damming up the Kubusi River and, also by way of a tunnel and a canal system, of making that water available to the King William’s Town/Berlin/ East London complex.

Sir, I put it to you that these activities and objectives are not departmental secrets, but in fact common knowledge. Furthermore, it is also common knowledge that in the early ’eighties, the said complex will no longer have sufficient water. Secondly, the Buffalo River has been developed to its maximum, and thirdly, water will have to be brought from another catchment area. The situation is such that the Irrigation Board would like to plan for water conservation in the river in times of possible water shortages. Groups of farmers wanted to do this. But, Sir, in 1970 they were requested by the then Minister of Water Affairs to wait a while until he had decided where to build his department’s dam. The Irrigation Board is not getting any information regarding planning or possible development that they have been requesting from the Ministry via the circle engineer from time to time. In the meantime, the riparian owners are being taxed for the luxury of having an irrigation board that is unable to accomplish anything constructive. The said investigations have been in progress for the past 20 years, and for 20 years these farmers have been living with the question hanging over their heads and the uncertainty in their minds concerning their future in the valley.

Mr. Chairman, we have here three possible dam basins over a distance of 10 miles, as the crow flies, and 20 miles if one follows the course of the river. Well-established farmers live in this valley. They are actually few in number. Owing to this planning, their future is unpredictable. Sir, this stage of planning places the inhabitants concerned in a delicate position. I plead with the hon. the Minister to treat the matter circumspectly in the sense that the people involved should be informed by him, so that unnecessary guesswork and uncertainty may be eliminated, for this brings nothing but grief; and, Sir—I say this with due respect—it distorts the image of the hon. the Minister and it exposes the Government to unnecessary criticism and animosity. I ask the hon. the Minister, to grant some assistance here, too; his obligingness will be highly appreciated.

Mr. Chairman, although a policy in respect of water consumption was clearly defined last year, I feel that in the light of developments in agriculture in the recent past, and particularly in the light of what has been discussed in this Committee this year, that policy should perhaps again be reviewed and debated. I feel that it is precisely in this Committee that the specific policy in regard to the use of water for agriculture should be discussed in greater detail tonight because it is the function of this Committee to discuss the policy in respect of water consumption as well and not only to discuss the various schemes and bottlenecks—particularly bottlenecks—in the constituencies of the various members. I should like to suggest that we have a somewhat wider discussion of this Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that in South Africa water is too expensive and too scarce to be used sub-economically. I accept that in the past there was a need for various schemes and in particular, for sub-economic schemes; but times have changed and the use of cheap water is forever a thing of the past. I would suggest that the department investigate all the older Government schemes, to ascertain what it would cost to construct similar schemes today and to calculate at what price the water could be made available to farmers from the new scheme. What I actually have in mind, is a scheme whereby we can ascertain whether we cannot have a more uniform policy in respect of the price-fixing of water. If we could achieve greater uniformity, it would mean that it would in no way be possible to allege that discrimination existed in regard to the supply of water.

It is true that the older sub-economic schemes …

Where are the sub-economic schemes?

Mr. Chairman, it is after all true, that some of the older Government schemes are in fact sub-economic, and we heard here tonight—and it is on record—that there are a great number of such schemes that do not even yield sufficient revenue to cover the costs of maintaining those schemes. [Interjections.] Of course, it depends upon what is understood by “sub-economic”. The new schemes are economic; the older schemes, or at least some of the older schemes, are sub-economic. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Kimberley pointed out tonight that the price under the Vaalhartz scheme had been increased to R25,88 per hectare and that this was regarded as a drastic or heavy increase. I want therefore to ask the hon. the Minister: If that price per hectare is regarded as high, what about the new schemes where the price per hectare is going to amount to several hundred rands per hectare? People talk in terms of R300, R400 and even more, for example, for water from the new Simonsberg canal. I understand that there are many farmers who are worried about the price of the water that is to be supplied from these new schemes. I also understand that there are many farmers who are not prepared at this stage to bind themselves contractually to use that water. Now I want to say immediately that it is very probable that when that water is in fact available, most of those farmers will sign a contract to use it. But, Mr. Chairman, it is surely not the intention of the hon. the Minister, in terms of the policy formulated last year, to supply water to certain farmers in certain parts, in certain agricultural spheres or in respect of certain products, at prices that are very much lower than in the case of other areas. There have been many interjections, but I could not hear what the hon. member said. I am not raising this question because I want to disparage the older schemes or the farmers farming under the older schemes. On the contrary. All of us in agriculture are encountering rising prices, and we know that. We have discussed that repeatedly.

Then what are you actually saying?

I am sorry if the hon. member does not understand me. Let me try to state my case once again. The hon. the Minister must please try to fix a uniform policy in respect of the supply of water for agricultural purposes to farmers throughout South Africa, regardless of when the scheme was constructed. In this regard my argument is that one must realize that the construction of a dam may be cheaper in one area than the construction of a similar dam in another area; but let us try to make the basis for the determination of the price of water as uniform as possible. Let us try to find a scientific basis.

When do you take the yield per hectare into consideration?

No, I am not saying that the price of water per gallon or per litre must be the same for example at Stellenbosch and at Calvinia, or wherever the water might be. I am saying that the financial basis must be the same. That is the point I am making. [Interjections.] In reply to the question of the hon. the Minister I just want to point out that the farmers at Stellenbosch or Paarl, for example, grow products that are also grown in other parts, for example, at Vredendal. Wine grapes are grown at Vredendal and wine grapes are also grown at Paarl and Stellenbosch. Is it reasonable to expect that they should pay more or less the same price for their water? I should say, yes, it is reasonable to expect that; and it is that uniformity I am trying to encourage. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Wynberg that as far as the tariff is concerned we shall not be able to obtain uniformity as far as I am concerned. As far as the basis of calculation is concerned, the formula that is used, we nevertheless do have uniformity throughout the country. One has, after all, to consider the vicinity in which the dam is to be built, the costs involved, the total costs of the dam and the yield of that area per hectare. I also want to tell the hon. member that all the water schemes that are embarked upon by the Department have an economic basis. I do not believe that such things as sub-economic schemes exist.

[Inaudible.]

Very well, I shall refer to that. The hon. member referred to the older schemes. But I want to point out that problems often arise, for example, periodic droughts, when these people experience difficulty. But I want this evening to refer with very great pride to some of these older schemes. In fact, I have such a scheme in my constituency and I think it is one of the oldest in the country.

The hon. member must not become too old.

No, thank you. I refer here to the irrigation scheme at Calitzdorp. I speak subject to correction, but I think that this is the second oldest concrete dam in South Africa. That scheme has already been paid for. Those people have never asked for any of that money to be written off. In other words, we cannot refer to that scheme as a sub-economic one. It is an economic scheme; it is a paying proposition. I shall agree with the hon. member in connection with the policy of our Department of Agriculture that we must have economic units under that scheme. We agree with that policy and we advocate it all the time.

The hon. member for Griqualand East referred to certain water problems that they experience in Kaffraria. He made a plea to the hon. the Minister to the effect that the hon. the Minister should help them, otherwise his image would become rather distorted. The hon. member can feel free to discuss his problems with the hon. the Minister and the department because they are always prepared to listen.

I shall help him!

I want to associate myself with other hon. members and convey my thanks to the hon. the Minister and his department for the particular attention that they have given to the Oudtshoorn district and its water problems over the past year. The irrigation scheme there is probably one of the most difficult of the existing schemes. I am told that only Langenhoven knew how it operated. However, he has been dead for some time now, so we cannot even find out from him how the scheme operates. However, the hon. the Minister and his department have given particular attention to our problems over the past year. I want to thank them most cordially for that. We still have a few difficulties but I have such great faith in the hon. the Minister and his department that we will be able to solve those problems in the year that lies ahead.

Mr. Chairman, it has been said many times today that water is very valuable. It is also true that this wonderful country of ours is a dry and thirsty one. Almost 60% of its surface area receives less than 500 mm of rain per annum. The average rainfall for the whole country is only 483 mm. We have to cope with an increasing population. We are also experiencing wonderful development in this country. All these things simply add up to an increased consumption of water. The hon. member for Ermelo put it very well when he said that water was South Africa’s lifeblood. In order to provide sufficient water for the future we shall have to resort to improved techniques and apply improved principles in regard to the control of water. Reference has already been made in this debate to the fact that there must also be the correct approach on the part of the consumers of water. This approach will have to be changed drastically. Further research will also have to be carried out.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a plea this evening for continued research because this is extremely important. In this regard one can refer with a great deal of gratitude to the Water Research Commission which was established in 1971. I believe that the annual report of the Water Research Commission is one of the most interesting documents to appear on our desks this year. I want to appeal to every member of this Committee to make a very thorough study of this report. A particularly wide field is covered by the report, for example, water reclamation, groundwater research, irrigation, surface hydrology and, particularly, desalination. I should like to quote an extract from page 68 of this report. It reads as follows—

There was also a particularly interesting article that appeared in Volkshandel of September 1976 where the Secretary for Water Affairs wrote, inter alia, as follows—

South Africa has a great deal of underground water. Unfortunately, the largest percentage of this water is saline. We often find when we drill for water that in most cases the water is saline. In other words, it cannot be used for animals and for irrigation. I want to make a plea that the Water Research Commission will continue to do research in connection with the desalination of water. If we can reach the stage where the subterranean water can be desalinated to such an extent that it can be included in our water economy, our existing fears in regard to the shortage of water that may possibly exist towards the end of this century will disappear.

There is also another matter I wish to advocate, namely, the desalination of seawater. In this connection I want to refer to the annual report of the Water Research Commission. We find the following on page 69—

I am thinking now of the Cape—this wonderful province of ours that covers such a vast area. There are few parts of this province with ample water. Reference was made to the Boland this afternoon as being an area with ample water. There are a few regions that have ample water. Other than those, the country is dry and barren. There is no water at all in many areas. Now I can imagine—Sir, you will permit me to take a peep into the future—that if we can desalinate the seawater around our Cape coast, and this can be done economically, if we can get that water to the interior and promote farming operations there by making irrigation water available for that purpose so as to eliminate the periodic droughts that cripple the Cape, we shall be able to develop the potential of this province in a wonderful way. This province does have that potential. Every now and again it does allow another province to beat it on the rugby field but, after all, we have to show good neighbourliness! We cannot win them all. Our most pressing problem in the Cape is a shortage of water. That is why I hope and trust—perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us what progress has been made and whether this ideal can be realized—that the desalination of seawater will in the future be able to inject new life into this wonderful province of ours.

Mr. Chairman, from all the speeches that have been made this afternoon and this evening by various speakers one realizes that hon. members are deeply concerned about the shortage of water facing South Africa in the future. Various speakers referred to the inkudicious use of water, for example, baths and leaking taps. The hon. member for Ermelo spelt this out very clearly and the hon. member for Oudtshoorn associated himself with those remarks. One wonders whether our people always realize to the full how valuable water is to us. One is usually only aware of the value of an article once one has had it and then lost it.

Water and its conservation are becoming more and more important in South Africa with its fluctuating rainfall and its very swift development in every sphere, such as industry and agriculture, and there is also its growing population. Water is becoming more and more scarce. I am convinced of the fact that we shall have to give more attention to water conservation and its judicious use.

In the estimates before this Committee provision is made for an amount of R169,6 million for the Department of Water Affairs of which almost R106 million has been earmarked for capital expenditure on State water supply schemes. This amounts to almost 70% of the total Water Affairs budget. In pursuance of this fact it is clear to me that there is still a great need for water conservation.

I also want to thank the hon. the Minister for the amount that is being spent on the raising of the wall of the Loskop Dam in my constituency. Actually, the dam is situated on the boundary of my constituency, and the constituency of the hon. member for Potgietersrust derives most benefit from it. The wall of the dam is being raised by 9 metres at an estimated cost of R12 million, of which R2,4 million is being provided in the present financial year. Once this work has been completed—and it is swiftly nearing completion—we shall probably never experience a shortage of water for irrigation in that part of the world again. It is also pleasing to see that a scheme is envisaged—it will be built shortly—for the supply of water from that dam to the South Ndebele homeland.

When we look at the question of dam building at present I can say that we were very impressed during our recent visit to the Theewaterskloof Dam scheme. One thinks involuntarily of how dams were built 30 or 40 years ago. I can well remember the circumstances under which the Loskop Dam was originally built. This dam was built exclusively with White labour. If I remember correctly, married men earned 4/3d per day at the time. Those were years of poverty. The families of those people were not permitted to live with them on the site. Their families lived at least 15 miles away from the building site and I can remember how White Afrikaner families lived next to the road in shacks made of sacking and corrugated iron. These shacks were not weatherproof and the men were only able to visit their families over weekends by bicycle or on foot.

Under a UP Government.

As the hon. member so rightly says, this happened during the time of the UP Government. I want at this stage to express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister and the Department for the way in which the dam workers are being accommodated at the moment. In contrast with the position as it was then we have a beautifully laid-out township there today with all the necessary facilities hard by the dam site. These people even have ESCOM power in their homes. We do not begrudge these people being able to build dams today under these circumstances. That is the way the NP Government does things.

When we say that we are concerned about the way in which water is going to waste and also about the shortage of water, we must also say that there is still a great deal of scope for Government water schemes. An enormous amount of water is still running away to the sea each year in our rivers. A very great responsibility rests upon the shoulders of the Government to build dams in the future. One is very concerned because sufficient attention is still not being given to the question of the tapping of our subterranean water resources. Hon. members have referred to subterranean water but I want to refer specifically to the tapping of subterranean water. This is an equally important aspect of the supply of water and we do not have inexhaustible resources. There are numbers of factors that affect subterranean waters.

At 20h53, proceedings suspended until 21h02 to enable members to attend a division.

Mr. Chairman, when we suspended business to attend the division in the House of Assembly I was saying that there were various factors affecting the availability of subterranean water. I should like to mention a few of these. In the first instance I think of the injudicious drilling of boreholes; secondly, the effect that the rainfall has on our subterranean water; thirdly—and this is a very important factor— there is the question of grass fires; and fourthly, mining activities. Of course, there are still many more.

Research in the sphere of our subterranean water resources is probably the task of the Hydrological Research Institute of the Department. This institute is a separate division of the Department of Water Affairs and was opened officially about four and a half years ago. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to give this division every possible assistance in the form of staff and finance to enable it to obtain the necessary research facilities so that the scope of our subterranean water supplies can be properly ascertained.

I am not sure that the users of our subterranean water always realize that we are dealing here with limited resources and that we have to deal with them carefully. The time has come for attention to be given to a well-planned information programme in respect of the use of our subterranean water. Certain subterranean water control areas do exist where the division of hydrology controls the extraction of water. I am not asking for general control to be instituted on a national level, but research and information can no longer remain a second priority. Because of present pumping techniques and the increasing use of subterranean water we shall be moving on very dangerous ground if we are not sure of what we are doing.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give this sector of our water resources the attention it deserves. If a user of subterranean water does not pump judiciously and care is not taken that the subterranean water is supplemented, we shall eventually be faced with very great problems indeed.

Mr. Chairman, over the past years I have made appeals to the hon. the Minister and his department on various occasions to conserve water in my constituency and to make water available to urban and rural consumers. I want on this occasion to express my sincere gratitude to the hon. the Minister, the Secretary for Water Affairs and all the officials of the department for the particularly friendly way in which they have always received these representations and deputations, given them a hearing and listened to them, as well as for the particular way in which they have reacted to these appeals.

These representations dealt particularly with two proposed schemes. The first of these was the Duivenhoksriver rural water supply scheme. The hon. members for Caledon and Graaff-Reinet referred earlier in this debate to the high potential of the so-called Rûens area for wool and meat production. I want to make so bold as to say that the plains in the vicinity of Riversdale and Heidelberg are in no way inferior to the Rûens area as far as their potential for meat and wool production is concerned.

However, Sir, this area with all its potential is restricted by a water shortage. The subterranean water in that area is mostly brackish and there are no streams or springs that provide water in that area. As far as stock is concerned, the carrying capacity of the area is limited because of this shortage of water. That is why it is very important that we make use of this scheme to make drinking water available for stock in this area. It has become apparent over the past years that farmers in this area have often found it very difficult to farm successfully by dry land wheat cultivation alone. For this reason the cultivation of various types of grazing has been resorted to on a large scale over the past years with very great success and very good results. However, the stock cannot live on pastures alone; they have to have drinking water as well.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister and his department for the fact that an amount of R500 000 is being voted on this year’s estimates for the implementation of the first stage of that scheme. Besides providing drinking water for stock this scheme will also to a very large extent solve the water problem of the municipality of Heidelberg because this scheme will make an important contribution as far as the domestic consumption of water in the municipal area of Heidelberg is concerned.

However, I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister and his department not to leave things at making available this amount of R500 000 but to take steps as soon as possible to give full effect to this scheme. This scheme was announced by the previous Minister of Water Affairs at Swellendam in 1975, and this announcement was received most enthusiastically by everyone present there. Over the past while however the farmers and other interested persons and bodies in that area have become rather irritated by the fact that the positive implementation of the scheme has not been resorted to. One is very well aware of the problems with which the department has to contend but it is often difficult to explain them to the public at large in such a way that they accept them and, understanding them, are satisfied. For this reason I want to express the hope that this scheme will be embarked upon positively as soon as possible.

The other scheme in connection with which I have often made representations over the past years is the scheme to supply water to Mossel Bay and its environs. It is true that the fishing industry on the Southern Cape coast has experienced difficult times over the past few years. This has been so because of factors which you, Mr. Chairman, will, I am sure, not permit me to discuss here now. It is a fact that the fishing industry is one of the cornerstones of the economy of Mossel Bay and its environs. The other cornerstone is tourism and the holiday industry. Over the past years, however, tourism and the holiday industry have again in their turn been hampered by a shortage of water for domestic consumption by holidaymakers, tourists and, of course, the established inhabitants of the area as well. They have been plagued by continual water shortages at the end of each year.

A White Paper has however now been issued—and I thank the hon. the Minister for it—on the proposed Moordkuil River Government Water Scheme. Actually, this scheme makes provision for three phases into which water will be made available to the area. There is firstly the Bottelierskop Dam which actually envisages a permanent solution to the problem but, because this will be a fairly expensive undertaking, provision has also been made for a provisional step, the building of the so-called Klipheuwel Dam which ought to cost only R1 100 000 including a coffer dam and water purification works. It is hoped to complete this portion of the scheme within the next year or two but there will also be an on-going investigation in connection with the more permanent portion of the scheme, namely, the Bottelierskop Dam, the carrying out of which is only envisaged towards the end of the century.

In this connection I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister in the first instance that the Klipheuwel Dam be proceeded with as swiftly as possible. Because of the enormous influx of holidaymakers at the end of the year it is a fact that Mossel Bay and its environs simply cannot continue having to face one water crisis after the other at the end of each year. In accepting the fact that a start will shortly be made with the building of the Klipheuwel Dam I want to ask that the building of the Bottelierskop Dam will not be postponed indefinitely. One finds only too often that problems arise sooner than one expected them to. When, therefore, the need arises for water from the Bottelierskop Dam, the planning in that regard should not then be started from scratch but by that stage the planning should have been completed so that steps can be taken immediately to implement that part of the scheme.

There is also talk of interim planning—that is to say, until the Klipheuwel Dam has been completed and can supply water—for a temporary water supply. I want to make a plea that it will not be accepted that this interim plan will solve the problem but that in fact the Klipheuwel Dam be proceeded with.

Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by thanking the hon. the Minister and his department in advance for their compliance with these requests and appeals.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to address a final word to the hon. the Minister in connection with Pongolapoort. I just want to state that there is indeed a salt problem. Research workers have been trying to solve it for 12 years and we believe they have now succeeded in finding a solution. After the dam was completed during Minister Diederichs’ term of office, the cultivation of sugar has been taking place everywhere in the country except at Makhatini. It has developed at Hoedspruit in the Transvaal, in my constituency, at Richmond, at New Hanover and everywhere, but not in that area. [Interjections.]

†It is a draw, Mr. Chairman. The hon. the Minister has made his point and I have made mine. I still think I am correct, and time will show that that is so.

I wish to return to the figure I gave the hon. the Minister earlier on about the amount that has been spent on capital development by the department on dams. The Minister told me not to worry about it because it was an amount which had been spent since 1882. On page 144 of the report—I give the hon. the Minister the page number again—it says quite clearly—

A list of uncompleted works is given which according to my calculations amount to something like R800 odd million. Some of these works are irrigation works—I have just glanced quickly through the dams listed here. Let us assume that half of them are irrigation dams. Even if we deduct the subsidy of 33⅓% we are still faced with the situation that a minimum of R600 million has been spent since 31 March 1976 on the development of dams. One is faced with the fact that the Minister has in this particular year received R19 million in income for his department. I do not know how this is being coasted and how it is intended to pay this off. One understands that the figure of R19 million can increase over the years, but when one has inflation at the rate at which one has it today, it is quite apparent that over a period of 45 years which is the useful life of a scheme one cannot expect to recover a significant amount of the money that has been invested. I think every hon. member here representing a farming community will agree with me when I say that the fanners are already finding things difficult and now the rates have got to be increased in terms of the report which the hon. the Minister has quoted. How are the farmers going to meet those increased costs? In all the dams that are going to be built from now on, there is going to be a built-in escalation factor. Two figures are built into the cost of the Moordkuil Dam referred to by the hon. member for Mossel Bay. There is an amount of R92 000 for contingencies and a possible cost escalation of R92 000. The first time I noticed that this practice was being followed was when I studied White Paper N of 1978, the practice of making provision for contingencies and a possible cost escalation factor. I think this is a wise precaution. We should have some idea of what these contingencies may amount to and I think there is a 10% escalation in the cost of that particular dam.

Municipalities are going to be faced with an increasing burden in regard to the cost of water they have to purchase from the department. As I understand the situation the water tariff is fixed. This covers the capital redemption and the interest over a period of 45 years.

I wish to ask the hon. the Minister two questions. First of all, on page 15 of White Paper P—’78, the Report on the Riviersonderend-Berg River Government Water Works, an amount of R2 462 000 is indicated as being spent on the Kleinplaas Dam. It also states the following, and this is something I cannot understand; it puzzles me completely: “The area which will be covered under water is 7,6 ha.”

But they say it is a small farm.

It says Kleinplaas. It must be a very small farm and a very small dam. It must go hundreds of feet down into the ground. It will probably come out in Australia! I do not see how else they can do it. There is a problem there. There must be something wrong with the figure. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to explain that to me.

Another point I wish to raise appears on page 12 of White Paper I—’78—Proposed Vaal Dam Betterments. Paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2 deal with financial matters and refer to the balance outstanding. It appears to me that here the hon. the Minister has consolidated the amounts that are outstanding from previous years. He has arrived at a figure and is starting again now from this figure and extending the period for another 45 years. I should like to know whether that in fact is the situation.

You would not understand that. It’s maths!

I know the hon. member would not understand that. I am asking the hon. the Minister the question. Let us get this straight. According to an inspection of the amounts outstanding for the four Vaal River structures, that is the Vaal Dam, Bloemhof, Vaalhartz Weir and Douglas, the balance on the work was R43 212 000 odd at the beginning of the 1977-’78 financial year. This includes all capital expenditure, land purchases, etc. The weight of average interest is 8,13%.

In regard to the annual expenditure, the balance outstanding is assumed to be equivalent to the present-day capital expenditure. In other words, the hon. the Minister brought it to a date at the beginning of the financial year 1977-’78. Is this not an extension of the period during which those people were presumed to have been paying, up to that date? It seems to me that the betterments are obviously designed to strengthen the Vaal Dam and safeguard the water downstream and that kind of thing. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is not going to find himself in a situation where he may have to do this in other instances. I am very concerned indeed that he will find, as a result of escalating costs in respect of all these schemes that we are engaged upon today, that he will not be able to levy what anybody would regard as an economic tariff for water. It seems to me that that is the way in which it will work. The report states as follows—

In other words, the hon. the Minister has brought all those figures together, starting yet another 45 years, and he has increased the interest rate from the presumed medium rate of 8% to 11%. The financing and budgeting of this Department is something which I find a little strange. I hope that the hon. the Minister … [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, if that hon. member had read even one of the White Papers I would not mind his interjecting. He obviously has not got the remotest idea of what it is all about.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has said that for me and I am pleased.

I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister when he does reply, whether he would comment on the point that I made earlier on about standard terms.. The hon. the Minister said that these White Papers are not simply distributed among members of Parliament but all over the place. But at the end of every single one of these White Papers, when the capital costs are estimated the same factors are discussed in detail.

I am quite sure it is possible to avoid a lot of the costs entailed by simply stating an item and then inserting a figure, whatever it may happen to be, and continuing in this way so as to make these things more intelligible and easier. It will save a lot of time for hon. members and other people outside who have to cope with this situation.

Lastly, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether we have anything at all to do with Cabora Bassa. We invested an immense amount of money there. I remember that the then Minister of Water Affairs, Mr. Fanie Botha, took a group of members of Parliament up there on a trip to inspect the works and to see the dam, etc. I could not go, unfortunately. But, Sir, do we have any contact with those people? Have we any kind of say in what goes on in respect of the way the dam is operating? Who runs the power stations and things of that nature? I think the people would be very interested indeed to know exactly what is happening in that particular situation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to start with the last speaker. We have had a very valuable and enlightening debate. I want to try to be as brief and to the point as possible. I just want to tell hon. members that they have discussed such a wide variety of subjects that it will be very difficult to do justice to all these matters during the course of the evening. However, I shall try to reply comprehensively and to the point.

The Cabora Bassa scheme does of course have absolutely nothing to do with my department. This is a matter for Industries to attend to. They sell power to Escom. They obtain that power at a low tariff. The hon. member must ask Samora Machel who controls it. I do not know whether the Department of Industries knows. However, that is as far as I can go in this connection. It has nothing to do with my department. However, the power is supplied at a low tariff.

The hon. member also asked a question in regard to the accounts of Vaal Dam and the handling of the new capital investment. An amount of R43 million is still outstanding. I want to tell him what the department’s approach is in this connection. It was necessary for me to go into these matters again in order to ensure that the details that I want to give him now are correct. I read through them and I did not ask questions about them. As I see it, the matter is simply that the old amount and the new amount that is to be spent are now being combined and that this combined amount is now being spread over a certain period as far as its disbursement is concerned. Otherwise one is going to have an old loan, a first, a second and a third. Calculations and payments then become very involved. The approach of the department is therefore to consolidate. These people pay additional interest but the amount remaining is actually spread over a longer period. They do not have to pay it off so soon. You will understand that payments may have been made for 20 years of the original 45 year period. They now have a further period of 45 years. In other words, they pay more interest but the capital redemption is spread over a longer period. [Interjections.] Yes, it is of course at a higher rate of interest but they do have the advantage of not having to pay the high capital redemption. The position is actually being made easier from an accounting point of view so that one does not have to work with three different rates of interest and amounts of money. I would say that the main consumer of water, which is the Rand Water Board, will also make its calculations in a way which will not make the position too involved for the consumer on the Witwatersrand who has mainly to pay for this water. If there is an objection on their part and they feel that we should rather make our calculations in some other way, we will probably have to reconsider the position. However, that is my interpretation of the matter as I see it. It is consolidated into one amount and then it is again allowed to run for the full period.

The hon. member referred to the 7 hectares of the Kleinplaas Dam. I do not know whether my department can give me any information in connection with this matter. Unfortunately, I cannot tell him why it covers such a small surface area.

I want to refer to the report of the department. I think the hon. member spoke about the Bergville area. I do not know whether it is a reservoir.

Yes.

I have been there but not recently, so I am not quite sure. However, I shall give the hon. member the details later on.

The hon. member also spoke about the small amount of R19 million that we receive in spite of this enormous capital investment. It is true that we have spent large sums of money over the past year and that revenue for this particular financial year covered by the report was only R19 million. However, as I have already said, in the light of our policy of increasing levies gradually, particularly those of the farmers under Government irrigation schemes, we expect our revenue to be about R27 million this year. Larger quantities of water are sold as the schemes are completed and can supply more water. However, I think we must accept the fact that it may not be possible for us in the future to recover all the money that has already been spent, particularly in regard to irrigation, because one-third of the capital is in the form of a subsidy. We are also trying to recover at least the running expenses of the older schemes. The hon. member for Wynberg advanced arguments in this connection and I shall refer to him later. As far as this matter is concerned there are many factors that play a role and aggravate matters. As these more expensive schemes are completed the amount collected by the department will increase considerably. Some of these schemes have been built over a long period. Quite a number of them have been completed over the past two or three years and this will also contribute to the increased consumption of water and so too increase our revenue. However, I want to point out that this money does not go to the Department of Water Affairs but to the Treasury.

I understand from the Secretary that the Kleinplaas Dam is a very small dam indeed and that the figure of 7,6 hectares is correct. It is not a balancing dam but forms an integral part of the tunnel system. I do not know whether the hon. member is of the opinion that the dam is all that deep but it is situated in his part of the world and so I am sure he can find that out for himself. I did not see the matter in that light but when I again visit that area I shall investigate the matter myself.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay also expressed his appreciation, particularly in respect of the rural water supply scheme. I want to tell him that both that scheme and the Rûens veld scheme are schemes that have attractive cost advantages and that I should also like to embark upon the second one. However, there is a great deal of competition as far as money is concerned. Hon. members have heard the number of pleas that have been made for various schemes and there is only an amount of R169 million being voted on the estimates. The department has therefore to decide on priorities but it does try to see that justice is done. From the nature of the case some of the schemes will of course have to wait. I must also tell the hon. member for Mossel Bay that this larger scheme, the more permanent Bottelierskop scheme, will simply have to wait although it is not the only scheme that will have to be embarked upon later. People in my part of the world are complaining because they have been waiting now for 20 years. In the meantime the department is making investigations and, as the hon. member probably knows, the scheme that is now envisaged is only an interim scheme but it is considerably cheaper, and I think he ought to be grateful for it. But I can give him the assurance that the amount of R500 000 is not only being voted for this year. We hope to complete the scheme within three or four years and the other amounts will then be spent over that period.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Middelburg gave a penetrative exposition of the value and importance of water. He also expressed his gratitude for the increase in the amount voted for the Loskop Dam and for the good housing there. This is of course the standard maintained by the department at present because otherwise we cannot obtain the workers to complete these large schemes. He also referred to our subterranean water resources and I can assure him that these investigations will be made as soon as the money and the necessary staff available to us permit of it. As far as these investigations are concerned, there has been an acceleration of the rate but the work that has to be done is comprehensive. Nevertheless, our division of geohydrology is giving attention to this matter.

The hon. member for Oudtshoorn has problems in regard to the sub-economic scheme that was also mentioned by the hon. member for Wynberg. Perhaps “sub-economic” is not a completely fair description because, as I have explained previously, such schemes have a historical background. These schemes actually started as a welfare step and one cannot recover the full amount of money overnight in order to redeem capital, interest and operating costs. As hon. members know, all we try to do is to redeem a portion of the capital in respect of Government irrigation schemes because, from the nature of the case, we have to work on that basis. However, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn does have his old schemes and I am grateful that we have been able to make a contribution in that respect.

He also spoke about desalination, as did another hon. member, and I shall refer to that just now. However, I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the desalination of seawater is a very expensive process. We have to fall back on the reclamation of used water because it is cheaper, as well as on the extraction of groundwater and the development of all possible surface schemes. However, the time has come when we shall have to give attention to the desalination of seawater. As hon. members know, there is a pilot plant at Swakopmund because development in South West Africa requires it and because there is no other water available. According to the information at my disposal the most important processes for the desalination of seawater are the multi-stage process, the reverse osmosis process, vapour compression, electrodialisis, freezing, melting and sun distillation. Up to the present the reverse osmosis process would appear to be practical and economic, as well as the multistage process. Apparently the reverse osmosis process is accepted by scientists nowadays as being the most practical process. As I have already said, we have the pilot plant at Swakopmund where the seawater has first to be treated. After this comes the process of extracting the fresh water from the treated seawater. Prior treatment is necessary in order to remove the fine material in suspension before the water if forced through chemically treated membranes under high pressure. I may also mention that during the past year I agreed to certain of our engineers going overseas to study similar processes and also to visit the companies manufacturing these membranes. The desalination of seawater is an expensive process and it is therefore important for us to acquire the necessary know-how.

The present plant at Swakopmund was brought into use on 16 May and we hope to reach full production of 300 cubic metres during September of this year. This pilot plant is a joint undertaking by the Department of Water Affairs, the National Institute for Water Research of the CSIR and the Water Research Commission. It is a very interesting undertaking and, if time permits, I should like to discuss it a little further with hon. members later on. However, I hope that I have given the hon. member for Oudtshoorn sufficient information. Of course, he can obtain further information himself by doing some research in this connection because, as the hon. member for Moorreesburg has said, it is a very exciting subject.

The hon. member for Wynberg spoke about the policy of the supplying of water and said that I made our policy known last year. It was, however, accepted by the Government a long time ago and all I did last year was to reiterate it and explain the various categories and how they had to be applied. At the moment I cannot see how we can change this policy. There has been a plea that we should try to bring about uniformity. The hon. member referred to the uniformity in respect of water prices but I think that he meant uniformity in respect of water prices in areas producing the same products. However, there are many other factors that play a part. It is difficult to tax traditional areas that receive cheap water because the value of that land has already been discounted against the low water price. We cannot therefore suddenly insist that they pay more for water because this will have an immediate effect upon the value of their land. This is therefore a matter that one will have to study very carefully. This policy was adopted after the Commission of Inquiry into Water Matters submitted its report in 1970.

The Cabinet accepted the report and I dealt with this in detail last year. If we want to act sensibly and logically we cannot easily do away with those established guidelines. It may eventually have the result that people living in the interior will want to know why they cannot pay the same price for petrol as that paid by people living at the coast. There are different regions for the supply of electricity. Certain regions have certain advantages. One cannot summarily dispense with those advantages. I mention this merely for the sake of argument in order to explain that the same principle holds goods as far as the supply of water is concerned. It is not possible to say that because there are expensive schemes in the Boland like the Simonsberg canal to which the hon. member referred, other schemes have to be burdened so that the expensive scheme can provide cheaper water. The amounts for the canal schemes at Stellenbosch have not as yet been calculated finally. I am convinced of the fact that my department and I will be able to have a number of useful discussions in regard to the cost involved in the schemes with the people concerned. I just want the hon. member to realize that conditions in the various regions differ widely. There are traditional differences. In certain areas like De Dooms there are certain farmers who show a return of up to R12 000 per annum per hectare. Other farmers only get R400 per hectare from the products that they can grow. But the farmers who receive R12 000 per annum per hectare are grape farmers. However, they farm with export grapes that are more expensive than wine grapes. There are dried fruit farmers along the Breede River who have now gone over to wine grape production. Although the Dried Fruit Board has built up an extensive market for dried fruit of outstanding quality abroad, because wine grapes are a more profitable farming product farmers are now starting to produce them instead of fruit. This is also happening along the Orange River. The Dried Fruit Board now wants more land to be made available to people wishing to farm with dried fruit. However, as soon as the land and water is made available to farmers they may change over to wine grape production. Economics do play a role and if the natural advantages are not considered this can result in a complete imbalance. I do not wish to elaborate on this regard any further but I hope that the hon. member will understand that this is not such an easy question.

The hon. member for Griqualand East spoke about the pipeline from the Gubu Dam. This is mentioned in the White Paper and the hon. member will note that the White Papers change continually. This scheme was investigated and it was planned because industrial development made it necessary to establish Black people in that vicinity. When the scheme was completed no industrial development or establishment of Black people took place. The Department is not going to go ahead and spend more money. In the meantime the pumping scheme is the most beneficial measure. The department made three investigations there. There are good possibilities for dams in the Kubusie River. This can receive priority and, if necessary, we shall attend to the matter.

I also want to tell the hon. member that I take offence when he says that we do not answer letters. If there is any member whose letters remain unanswered, I want to know about it. This holds good for both my department and myself. I want the irrigation board concerned to come to see me and to bring the unanswered letters along. I am proud of the fact that my department and I do our best. I am not going to say that we do not make mistakes. However, I shall welcome it if the hon. member will make arrangements with the irrigation board so that we can go into the matter he raised. There would appear to me to be a liaison problem in this regard, as the hon. member said himself. However, I do not think that it can be such a serious matter. I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that the section engineer does of course not write letters to the Ministry; he directs his letters to the head office when problems arise. If, however, the hon. member experiences problems he must raise them himself with the Ministry or the department. I invite the hon. member to bring the people concerned to my office so that we can sit down at a table and discuss these matters. Those who have experience of my department and myself will know that nobody need wait an unnecessarily long time. You will understand that we cannot comply with all demands because we do not have the necessary funds or manpower. But there is no reason why anybody should have to turn back at our door. Even if discussions have to take place over weekends—Sundays included— those problems must be investigated. The same thing also holds good for the Secretary for Water Affairs. If there is anybody who works harder than he does I should like to know about it. The hon. member for Mooi River or I may possibly work harder.

We’ll be watching you next year in regard to what you are saying now.

Sir, I am being very honest and straightforward with you. When complaints of this nature are made I feel it is my duty to my department to approach the matter honestly and to acknowledge the fact if we have been at fault. The hon. member need not be afraid that I shall not do so.

The hon. member for Standerton advocated another water year. I want to thank the hon. member most sincerely for his fine suggestions.

Here he is.

However, i want to tell the hon. member immediately that when we have a great deal of rain a water year will not serve its purpose. A water year serves its purpose when we experience drought. In such a case people can experience it and have a feeling for it. Otherwise it will not make any impression. I have discussed the matter with the department and suggested that we should try every 10 years to bring the real problem of water in the country to the attention of the public, and the hon. member’s ideas in this connection will serve as a further stimulus. He referred to the dams in the Eastern Transvaal as well as to the fact that there should be more conservation and the better use of water. I appreciate his suggestions.

The hon. member for Ermelo also referred to the water position and gave us a very well-balanced exposition. He spoke about 6% of the water in our rivers that can be used. This actually represents 6% of the rainfall that finds its way into our rivers. I do not think the hon. member’s interpretation was quite correct. However, he made a very interesting speech in connection with the problems that are being experienced.

I want to refer briefly to the hon. member for Berea. He spoke about the water hyacinths.

†He wanted to know why it took so long before steps were taken in regard to the infestation of water hyacinths in the Hartebeespoort Dam. This is a very interesting matter. My Department initially said they are not responsible for controlling noxious weeds, wherever they may be. Legally it is correct. They did however take steps over the years in regard to the hyacinth infestation and, as the hon. member knows, this problem does not really fall under my Department. This infestation causes a problem to the public who come to the dam for recreational purposes. However, we had a good look into this matter at the beginning of last year. I told the Department—and Dr. Kriel agreed with me—that it is no use us saying that this is not our responsibility. We must take the responsibility and try to get the interested bodies together. Last year the Water Research Commission, the CSIR, the Water Research Institute, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, the Transvaal Provincial Administration and the Department of Health got together and tackled the problem. I realized that this problem was getting out of hand. However, no provision was made in the Budget for combating this problem. We therefore had to get permission from the Treasury to use money allocated for other purposes to try and eliminate this problem.

*That is the position more or less. I cannot say that the criticism of the Opposition has not been of assistance. They made a certain contribution. Sir, when I refer to other persons and bodies you must understand that the health bodies are still not happy about the fact that we have sprayed these hyacinths. I do not blame them because we do not know what results this may have. We have to watch matters very carefully. The Bureau of Standards was also brought into the picture. A fair number of scientific persons and bodies have been brought into the picture to watch this matter very carefully. We have, however, been successful and only 4% of the surface of the dam is still covered by hyacinths. Any further action to be taken in this connection is now in the hands of the province. Another reason for this step is that the dams are handed over to the provinces for recreational purposes. The Hartbeestpoort Dam was handed over to the Transvaal provincial authorities for recreational purposes and they then asked us what they could do with a dam full of hyacinths because the incidence of this weed had increased considerably in the interim. It was then that the department took action because we did not want to shirk our responsibilities. I want to express my appreciation to the department and all the persons and bodies involved in this matter for the fact that we have been able to make such spectacular progress. I have been there on a few occasions and on one occasion I went there with a group of scientific people who were involved in the matter. It is really encouraging to see teamwork of this nature and the success that has been achieved there.

The hon. member for Heilbron spoke about the problems that they are experiencing with algae. He made a very interesting speech and I shall ask the department to keep the copper sulphate close at hand. The algae appeared on the scene suddenly and the department begain spraying. Stocks had to be obtained and the permission of head office had also to be obtained. In the meantime the stuff started to smell so badly that the hon. member came to see me every other day to ask me when we were going to curb the problem. I promise that the department will make every effort to apply precautionary measures timeously in this connection.

I think I have confused a portion of the speech of the hon. member for Ermelo with that of the hon. member for Standerton. The hon. member for Standerton referred to power stations and the use of water for recreational purposes. He also said that as far as hydrology was concerned we should make use of the services of Black people. A hydrologist is a highly skilled person and there are no such people among the Black people. There are also far to few of them in the White ranks. These people are used chiefly for research work. The idea expressed by the hon. member was that some of our Black people should be trained in various scientific directions and in technical directions so as to participate actively in this sphere, and I think that that is to be welcomed.

The hon. member for Marico spoke about water shortages and their concomitant problems, and particularly in regard to ground water in the dolomite regions of his part of the world. As far as Zeerust is concerned water is brought over a long distance from the dolomite basins to places like Mafeking, and these people are becoming concerned lest their water be used later for development in other areas. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the water of the Malmanie eye and other sources will be used for the development at Zeerust and that the hon. member need not concern himself about this. I do not know how soon we shall be able to establish a water board there. I wanted to discuss water boards this evening because there are a large number of them that have to be established. By the way, the Rand Water Board, the first water board to be established in this country, is 75 years old this year. This was the forerunner of water boards and it has rendered exceptional service. In the annual report mention is made of existing water boards and other boards that still have to be established. These people are rendering excellent service in the regions where they provide water so that it is not necessary for the department to do this work everywhere itself. It is my view that one should not burden a department too much with the finer details in connection with the supply of water.

The hon. member for Orange Grove referred once again to the fact that I had not interpreted the question of the Pongolapoort Dam correctly. He referred to what had apparently been said by my predecessor but I just want to say that as far as I know my predecessor said that the Swaziland government had agreed in principle to this scheme and that the scheme was then proceeded with.

It was very much stronger than that.

That is my information and the fact remains that they agreed in principle. The construction work was then proceeded with and when the documents had to be finalized it appeared that they were not very happy about the position. Further negotiations followed and I want once again to give hon. members the assurance that we are doing everything possible to finalize this matter. The latest discussions with the Swaziland government have been very fruitful and I think we under stand one another. Another hon. member spoke about our co-operation with other homelands in regard to water. This is a very good field for co-operation because there are great possibilities for co-operation in this connection. There is every opportunity for cooperation with Swaziland particularly to the advantage of both countries as far as water is concerned.

The hon. member also referred to the dam in the Umfolozi River. A committee has been appointed to investigate this matter but the report is not yet available. Care will be taken to ensure that the natural surroundings are not disturbed unnecessarily and in due course I shall inform hon. members in regard to the progress that is being made. As far as the canal through the Etosha game reserve is concerned, the plans have not yet again been revised.

†The position is as it was last year and nothing more has been done. As the hon. member is aware, water affairs in South West Africa do not fall under this department anymore, but is the responsibility of the Administrator-General. The hon. member may either talk to him or to Swapo, whoever he prefers to talk to.

*As far as the Hangklip Dam is concerned there are also various interested parties that are involved, for example, the Department of Forestry and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I am afraid that there is no way out in this connection. The Hangklip Dam will be built on the other side of the Steenbras Dam in a gorge of the Palmiet River near Betty’s Bay. Some of the people of Betty’s Bay have already objected because we are going to call it the Hangklip Dam because they say that Hangklip is a long way from it. Why this is so I do not know. Naturalists have been consulted in this connection and I can tell the hon. member that if problems arise my department and I will attend to them. The Department of Forestry is also experiencing problems in this area and three weeks ago I visited the area to look at the dam basin and at certain other things pointed out to me by the Department of Forestry. I can give the hon. member the assurance that we shall make sufficient time available for the removal of plants. There is however no alternative plan for supplying water to Cape Town. Many people have asked why we cannot supply water from other places, and somebody who lives in the area also put this question to me. People are already complaining that water is going to become expensive but in order to meet Cape Town’s water requirements we shall simply have to build that dam within the next 20 years or so. The department anticipates that we shall have to start building within the next six to eight weeks in order to be able to accommodate the natural development of the Cape Peninsula.

†The hon. member also referred to public relations and this may be something we can do more about. I have asked my Department to contact the Public Service Commission for more money, especially for this sort of thing, because we have found that the department, with all its various branches of activity, has much to offer to the public. Unfortunately, up to now, we have had little success in this regard.

*The hon. member for Kimberley North spoke about feeder canals, inundation, brackishness and so forth. He asked that the scheduling that has now been increased to 60 morgen should be increased further. I think that we wanted to amend the Water Act this year to enable people under Government water schemes to obtain water for more than 60 hectares, but the select committee was not partial to that idea. I do not think Dr. Kriel is completely satisfied with my reply but I want to tell the hon. member for Kimberley North that we do not want to make it too easy for people to obtain overly large pieces of land under these schemes. Perhaps we can permit people to obtain three of these original holdings. The hon. member also spoke about water tariffs, and other hon. members pointed out that they are not yet all that high. I sent the hon. member the table that I received from the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in connection with water tariffs. I have just been informed that the approach is that people are permitted to irrigate up to 120 hectares but that this question has been referred to the Land Tenure Board. The Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure has of course to be consulted in respect of the extent of the land under irrigation. We shall therefore give further attention to this matter in the future. I want to tell him that the question of costs is not such an easy one. I have the table here before me and it reflects the cost of water in relation to the total production costs of various commodities. In the case of potatoes the cost of water as a percentage of the total cost is 0,53%. The hon. member says this is wrong. In respect of groundnuts the cost of water as a percentage of the total production costs is 3,68%. This is at Vaalhartz.

You will see that where our farmers complain about the cost of water—and I do not blame them—this is actually not justified. This is really not the important factor. There are people in the Hex River Valley who have a turnover of more than R12 000 per annum per hectare, and they also complain in this connection. I think that their water costs are R130 per hectare. This is a very small percentage but we accept the fact that there will always be people who feel that if the State provides something, it must do so at the lowest possible price. The hon. member asked that the increase be implemented through the medium of reasonable instalments. We try to make them as reasonable as possible but the tax is already very low. Last month I attended a meeting in Barkly West.

†A certain Mr. Edwards said: Now, why do you start us off at R8 or R10 a hectare per year? I said: You have not paid for eight years. They had the water for nothing, and still they complain, and ultimately he said to me: No, I am not complaining about my own rate, but there are others who pay even less than I do.

*You see, this is the sort of thing we experience but in any case we are giving our attention to it.

The hon. member for Caledon asked for more flexibility, and I think that is our policy. I want to tell the hon. member that we consider every area and its relative advantages. This is also done in regard to the new schemes and this is our approach. We do not want to be inflexible. The tariffs are reviewed every year and there are socioeconomic circumstances that have to be considered. There are certain circumstances prevalent in a particular area and these carry a lot of weight in the determining of water tariffs.

The hon. member for Prieska asked me about the dam wall below the confluence of the Orange and Vaal Rivers. I want to tell him that investigation has proved that this is one of the less profitable schemes. It is still on the programme but it is not being considered at the moment. It is one of the schemes that we cannot justify at the moment because of the few advantages attaching to it. At the moment therefore it will be more to the advantage of the farmers in that area to pump water rather than to build an expensive dam wall in the river and then to try to extract the water by means of canals. That is the position at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, I have covered a very wide field and I do not want to take up the time of hon. members any longer. I wanted to refer to weather modification. The hon. member for Berea also referred to this matter and I can tell him that in my constituency a private body is carrying out hail prevention under permit. This is a very expensive process. It is a matter in which one has to deal not only with the weather in the atmosphere but also with the weather among the farmers. If it does not rain, the farmers say it is because of the aeroplanes, as happened in a case I had last year. Some of the people of Lydenburg complained to me that the Lowveld farmers at Nelspruit were chasing away their rain, and I told the farmer that there was no scientific proof of that. He then said to me: But, Sir, I have seen it with my own eyes. The aeroplane flew through the clouds and, when it had gone through, there was an enormous hole in the clouds! [Interjections.] If that type of thing is done and there is a drought, there is great dissatisfaction. People watch every aeroplane. Quite often an aeroplane flies through the clouds and, because clouds are continually changing their shape, if a hole appears in the clouds, people think it is the aeroplane that caused it. But I do not blame the farmers at all. I can give hon. members the assurance that the Bethlehem project is under way. It is actually the Weather Bureau of the Department of Transport that is carrying out the project there, and the Water Research Commission is co-operating. The project at Nelspruit has been in operation for years now and I have asked them to station observers at Nelspruit as well. They may possibly be able to collect a great deal of very useful scientific information. It is hoped that the Water Research Commission will station observers there this year. My department is also making certain observations.

Hon. members referred to ground water research. A great deal of work is being done in this connection. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet spoke about ground water research and about the work that is being done by the Water Research Commission. I want to thank him for his positive contribution. He referred to the textile industry and the work that is being done there.

He asked that researchers be sent overseas, and I can assure the hon. member that the Water Research Commission makes use of the services of as many researchers as possible, including those from abroad. I have been criticized in this connection because it has been said that we have sufficient scientists in the country and that the Water Research Commission is obtaining people from abroad unnecessarily. We have a balanced view as far as these matters are concerned. I also want to thank the hon. member for the congratulations he expressed in regard to the drilling programme.

I want to hasten on. Mr. Chairman, I shall just run through my notes quickly to ascertain whether I have omitted to discuss anything of importance. Water pollution is a very important matter. In respect of the tributes that have been paid to my department, I want to tell you, Sir, that we have an excellent group of people. There are more than 300 engineers in the department and there is still a shortage. Even under the present circumstances, even with the availability of bursaries, our recruitment programme is not as successful as we would like it to be. We are in a little trouble with the Public Service Commission in regard to this recruitment question and they are now negotiating. I shall discuss the matter further with my department. But we still need more people to meet these great challenges that face us.

I should like to mention a few further matters, Mr. Chairman. The Water Research Commission was invited to attend a conference on water reclamation in California this year. I received a letter from Dr. Stander, the chairman, the other day. Attached to it were two letters that he received from America. The one letter, dated 17 April 1978, was from Richard Heaton, Project Director, and he writes as follows—

He goes on to say—

This is really a compliment, Sir. I have not read out the whole letter because time does not permit me to do so. Here is the other letter. It is written by Davin Jenkin, the director, and he writes as follows—

This is the evidence that we receive, Sir. I cannot mention everything. We really do have a team of excellent people. We spoke about the International Commission on Large Dams. Dr. Kriel and senior officials are playing a leading role in that connection. I have already referred to it. This year they are arranging a meeting in Cape Town. The officials of the department are spoken of with great praise. I just want to mention our little team of young engineers. Reference was made recently in Hoofstad to Dr. C. P. A. Roberts and Mr. A. G. Davies. Mr. Davies is in the Parliamentary team this year. They take it in turn. I want to congratulate him and Dr. Roberts. The newspaper reported that engineers of the Department of Water Affairs had received special awards during the annual meeting of the South African Institute of Civil Engineers that was held in Johannesburg recently for the particular work that they had done. The names of these two gentlemen were mentioned in connection with the fact that this institute had honoured them. I want this evening to extend my congratulations to the department and in particular to these two gentlemen. You know that Mr. Davies was connected with the P. K. le Roux Dam where he did excellent work. This is all very encouraging to me. I think it must be an inspiration to our young people to be able to join a department that can make such an excellent contribution and that has so many challenges to meet.

I want therefore to thank all hon. members very much indeed for the tributes that they have paid to us and the gratitude they have expressed. I am sorry to have been in rather a hurry but I feel that I must content myself with these remarks. I want to give you the assurance that my department and I are there to serve the community and that our door is always open. I only hope that in the years that lie ahead we shall be able to obtain a little more finance because we estimate that if we have to continue with the amount that we have now, we will get more and more behind.

Vote agreed to.

The Committee rose at 22h11.