Open Collections

BC Sessional Papers

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION REPORT Submitted to the Provincial… British Columbia. Legislative Assembly 1947

Item Metadata

Download

Media
bcsessional-1.0339791.pdf
Metadata
JSON: bcsessional-1.0339791.json
JSON-LD: bcsessional-1.0339791-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): bcsessional-1.0339791-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: bcsessional-1.0339791-rdf.json
Turtle: bcsessional-1.0339791-turtle.txt
N-Triples: bcsessional-1.0339791-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: bcsessional-1.0339791-source.json
Full Text
bcsessional-1.0339791-fulltext.txt
Citation
bcsessional-1.0339791.ris

Full Text

 PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
DYKING,  DRAINAGE, AND
IRRIGATION COMMISSION
REPORT
Submitted  to the  Provincial  Secretary
December 24th,  1946
DEAN F. M. CLEMENT, c
ommissioner
Part I.     Irrigation Districts
VICTORIA,   B.C. :
Printed by Don McDiabmid, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty.
1947.  Vancouver, B.C., December 24th, 1946.
The Honourable G. S. Pearson,
Provincial Secretary,
Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C.
Sir,—I have the honour to submit to you the Report of the Dyking, Drainage, and
Irrigation Commission, together with such recommendations and explanations as I consider fair and reasonable.
The answers to the question in the terms of reference are as brief and specific as
is the question asked. The explanations and comments are lengthy, but I believe are
essential to a comprehensive understanding of the complexities of the problems that
must be faced.
Respectfully submitted.
F. M. CLEMENT,
Commissioner.  ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
I wish to express my thanks to the many trustees, secretaries, and witnesses of
the various irrigation districts for the whole-hearted way in which they co-operated in
securing the necessary information and data.
Thanks are also due to Mr. Bruce Dixon, Inspector and Commissioner of Dykes,
and to Mr. E. Davis, Comptroller of Water Rights, and to their colleagues, who have
made available all information requested.
I wish also to thank Mr. J. Pitcairn Hogg for his assistance and counsel; Miss
Marcia Harris, secretary, for organizing the inquiry and assisting ably with the
preparation of the report; and Miss Joan Williams for correcting and typing the
manuscript.
Public hearings were held in Pitt Meadows, Mission, Chilliwack, Kamloops,
Vernon, Kelowna, Rutland, Westbank, Penticton, Naramata, Peachland, Okanagan
Falls, Cawston, Keremeos, Robson, and Creston. Briefs bearing on the problem were
presented by the representatives of all districts concerned except Pitt Meadows No. 1
Dyking District. One hundred and thirty-eight witnesses gave evidence, and many
scores of growers answered questions by mail.    To all of these I express my thanks.
F. M. CLEMENT,
Commissioner.  TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page.
Terms of Reference  11
Recommendations  13
The Irrigation Districts—
1. Assumptions and Considerations  15
2. Some Complicating Factors  16
Annual Repayment  16
3. Historical Statement  19
Order in Council No. 751, June 5th, 1933  20
4. The 1938 Arrangement  21
An Example of the 1938 Arrangement  21
Variable Factors  23
A Renewal Reserve  24
The Situation is met  24
What the 1938 Arrangement included  25
The Question of Rising Costs ;  26
Charge to Time and Inexperience  26
5. Some General Comments—
Increase in Material and Labour Costs   (Maintenance and Replacements), 1939-46 „  26
The Cost of Packing is rising :  27
Codling-moth  28
The Districts have been paying for Original Systems while replacing
them  28
Efficacy of the Irrigation Systems  28
Effect of Insufficient Water-supply on Cost of Production  29
Expanding the Systems  29
Can all the Indebtedness be paid ? ,  29
A Ceiling Price for Administration Purposes only ..  30
Exercise of Direction   31
" Soldiers' Land Act "  31
6. Distribution of Income—
Gross Receipts  31
Gross and Net Costs  32
Net Income E stimates ..  33
Total Gross Sales  33
7. Orchard History  34
Statement by G. A. Barrat  37
A General Farm  39
8. Gross Income Distribution '  40
Individual District Summaries—
Black Mountain Irrigation District  51
Cawston Irrigation District  54
East Creston Irrigation District  57
Glenmore Irrigation District  61
Heffley Irrigation District '.  63 AA 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Individual District Summaries—Continued. Page.
Keremeos Irrigation District  66
Naramata Irrigation District  69
Okanagan Falls Irrigation District  72
Oyama Irrigation District  75
Peachland Irrigation District  78
Robson Irrigation District  82
Scotty Creek Irrigation District  85
South-east Kelowna Irrigation District  87
Vernon Irrigation District  90
Westbank Irrigation District  94
Winfield and Okanagan Centre Irrigation District  96
Wynndel Irrigation District  100 LIST OF TABLES.
Irrigation Districts.
Page.
1. Comparative Statement of Present Payments to Conservation Fund, Annual
Amounts required for Replacements and Annual Charges levied  (as in
1945)  17
2. Conservation Fund—Comparative Statement  18
3. Comparative Statement—Conservation Fund (per Irrigated Acre)  18
4. Percentage Increase in Material and Labour Costs (Maintenance and Replace
ments)   1939-46  27
5. The Pattern of a District  32
6. Net Operator Incomes expressed in per Cent, of Gross Receipts  33
7. Value of Shipments of Fruit, 1939-40, from Whole Okanagan Valley (relative,
not absolute)  33
8. A Representative Farm  34
9. Statistics on 25 Acres of One of the Best Orchards in a Central District  35
Financial History of a Good Orchard in Northern Area  36
10
11
Relation of Number of Bearing Apple-trees per Farm to the Average Cost of
Production of Apples and Operator's Labour Income in the Okanagan
Valley in 1939	
     38
12. Average Production Cost of Apples per Box     39
13. Dairy and Stock Farm, Vernon District (from 86 Acres assessed as Grade A)..    39
Gross Income Distribution.
14. Cawston-Kereme
OS     ________ _ _   _ - 	
                   41
15. Creston    .         .
42
16. Kelowna	
     43
17. Naramata	
     44
18. Oyama	
     45
19. Peachland  	
       46
20. Robson __.
     47
21. Vernon
                                   48
22. Westbank	
                                   49
23. Winfield and Ok*
inaeran Centre	
      50  THE TERMS OF REFERENCE.
To His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in Council:
The undersigned has the honour to report that it is deemed advisable to cause
inquiry to be made to determine how much each of the improvement districts under
the " Water Act, 1939," and of the districts under the " Drainage, Dyking and Development Act," and the " Dyking Assessments Adjustment Act, 1905," that are indebted
to the Province can pay annually in respect of its indebtedness, and to recommend:—
1. That in accord with the " Public Inquiries Act," being chapter 131 of the
" Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1936," Frederick Moore Clement, of Vancouver, British Columbia, be appointed a sole Commissioner to inquire into and determine how much each of the following corporations can pay annually in respect of its
indebtedness to the Province:—
Black Mountain Irrigation District.
Cawston Irrigation District.
East Creston Irrigation District.
Glenmore Irrigation District.
Heffley Irrigation District.
Keremeos Irrigation District.
Naramata Irrigation District.
Okanagan Falls Irrigation District.
Oyama Irrigation District.
Peachland Irrigation District.
Robson Irrigation District.
Scotty Creek Irrigation District.
South-east Kelowna Irrigation District.
Vernon Irrigation District.
Westbank Irrigation District.
Winfield and Okanagan Centre Irrigation District.
Wynndel Irrigation District.
Chilliwack Dyking District.
Coquitlam Dyking District.
Dewdney Dyking District.
Maple Ridge Drainage District.
Maple Ridge Dyking District.
Matsqui Drainage District.
Matsqui Dyking District.
Pitt Meadows Dyking District.
Pitt Meadows Dyking District No. 2.
Sumas Drainage, Dyking, and Development District.
2. That the said Frederick Moore Clement be paid fifty dollars a day and his
expenses for the time he is engaged in making the said inquiry.
3. That a certified copy of this Order, if approved, be furnished to Frederick
Moore Clement, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Dated the 10th day of May, 1946.
E. T. KENNEY,
Minister of Lands and Forests.
Approved the 10th day of May, 1946.
JOHN HART,
Presiding Member of the Executive
Council.
11 AA 12 THE TERMS OF REFERENCE.
The following letter was handed to me by the Honourable E. T. Kenney, Minister
of Lands, in Victoria on July 6th, 1946:—
Dean F. M. Clement,
University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, B.C.
Dear Dean Clement:
In your inquiry to determine the ability of the several irrigation districts to pay
their indebtedness to the Province, please consider the terms of the 1938 arrangement
within the scope of the inquiry.
Yours faithfully,
E. T. KENNEY,
File No. 0160243. Minister. RECOMMENDATIONS.
Vancouver, B.C., December 24th, 1946.
The Honourable G. S. Pearson,
Provincial Secretary,
Victoria, B.C.
Dear Sir,—As instructed in the letter from your office under date of May 18th,
1946, signed by the Deputy Provincial Secretary, I beg to report as follows:—
That after careful examination of the various districts, exhaustive examination
of the records, and subject to the qualifications and explanations contained in the
appendices to this report, the respective districts mentioned in the terms of reference
can pay annually the following amounts on their indebtedness to the Government:—
Annual
Paym'ent
Name of District. (1945).
Black Mountain Irrigation District  $2,873.22
Cawston Irrigation District    Nothing
East Creston Irrigation District     6,688.50
Glenmore Irrigation District	
Heffley Irrigation District	
Keremeos Irrigation District	
Naramata Irrigation District	
Okanagan Falls Irrigation District-
Oyama Irrigation District	
Peachland Irrigation District	
Robson Irrigation District	
Scotty Creek Irrigation District	
  1,438.17
  989.85
  1,911.85
  2,562.00
  700.10
  Nothing
  Nothing
  342.00
  881.00
South-east Kelowna Irrigation District  6,000.00
Vernon Irrigation District	
Westbank Irrigation District	
Winfield and Okanagan Centre Irrigation District	
Wynndel Irrigation District	
3,575.00
835.00
Nothing
800.00
Chilliwack Dyking District  7,000.00
Coquitlam Dyking District  Nothing
Dewdney Dyking District  Nothing
Maple Ridge Drainage District  Nothing
Maple Ridge Dyking District  Nothing
Matsqui Drainage District  Nothing
Matsqui Dyking District  Nothing
Pitt Meadows Dyking District No. 1  Nothing
Pitt Meadows Dyking District No. 2  Nothing
Sumas Drainage, Dyking, and Development
District  Nothing
Recommended
Annual
Payment.
$1,500.00
200.00
5,000.00
1,438.17
300.00
1,200.00
2,562.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
300.00
6,000.00
3,575.00
835.00
200.00
300.00
7,000.00
300.00
900.00
200.00
1,200.00
200.00
2,200.00
Nothing
100.00
7,000.00
The amounts recommended for repayment annually by the irrigation districts are
based on the assumption that the requirements for Renewal Reserve Account, as
recommended by the resident engineers, have first been provided for.
The amounts recommended for repayment annually by the dyking and drainage
districts are based on the assumption that sums not less than those named for each
district, or greater sums if so advised by the Inspector and Commissioner of Dykes,
have first been provided for the Renewal Reserve Accounts.
13 AA 14 RECOMMENDATIONS.
These amounts are as follows:—
District. Renewal Reserve.
Chilliwack Dyking  $2,500.00
Coquitlam Dyking     1,200.00
Dewdney Dyking      1,200.00
Maple Ridge Drainage        300.00
Maple Ridge Dyking     2,400.00
Matsqui Drainage        600.00
Matsqui Dyking     2,100.00
Pitt Meadows Dyking No. 1    Nothing
Pitt Meadows Dyking No. 2       400.00
Sumas Drainage, Dyking, and Development District  14,000.00
All of the amounts mentioned in the recommendations are based primarily on the
productivity of the land out of which the operator has to make provision annually for
various costs and expenditures.
Suggestions are offered in the appendices with regard to speculative and scarcity
values.    It seems reasonable and fair that some consideration should be given to these
if a larger portion of the borrowings is ever to be repaid.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
F. M. CLEMENT,
Commissioner. APPENDIX.
PART I.
THE IRRIGATION  DISTRICTS.
ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS.
The recommendations are based on the following assumptions and considerations:—■
1. (a.) That the general price-level during the next twenty years will be higher
than that which obtained during the past twenty years.
(6.) That the price of the products the grower has to sell will be appreciably
higher.
(c.)  That the costs of all labour, material, and living generally will be higher.
(d.) That costs in relation to prices received will bear approximately the same
relationship to each other for the next twenty years as they have for the past twenty
years.
2. That it is in the interest of the districts that the systems be operated and maintained by them without additional Government loans, except under very .exceptional
circumstances that it is impossible to foresee.
3. That strong renewal and replacement reserves must be maintained at all times
so that the districts will be able to replace or rebuild their works as occasion demands
in order that production and business may continue without interruption.
4. That the districts will be required to raise such additional sums as are necessary for replacement reserves, the amounts required to be estimated on the basis of
present and rising costs.
5. That it is the wish of the Government that the present living standards enjoyed
by the growers and farmers shall not be depreciated except because of economic fluctuations beyond their control.
6. That the policy of the Department of Lands as stated by the Comptroller of
Water Rights in evidence given at Penticton, July 31st, 1946, will continue. Quoting
from page 25 of transcript:—
" Q. And the policy of the Department then would be, first of all, to see that
operations were taken care of?
"A.   (Mr. E. Davis, Comptroller of Water Rights.) Yes.
" Q. Second, maintenance ?
"A. Yes.
" Q. The next is Renewal Reserve ?
"A. Yes.
" Q. And the last Conservation Fund ?
"A. Yes."
7. That the Government will continue to exercise a strong measure of direction
and control so long as any part of the debt remains unpaid.
8. That in all cases where the recommended payments to the Conservation Fund
have been written down, it does not mean that the assessments are to be less. The
assessments may (and in many cases will) have to be materially increased. It means
simply that the districts will have to take care of additional replacements at markedly
increased costs and that an opportunity is being given them to do so.
15 AA 16 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
SOME COMPLICATING FACTORS.
There are many complicating factors that it is difficult to reconcile when trying
to find a formula that will apply with equity to all districts.    Some of these are:—
1. All districts have not been put (and I doubt if they can be put) on a proportionate basis with regard to repayments. For instance, some have been paying much
and some little annually on their indebtedness.    (See Table 1.)
2. The " write-offs " have varied materially in amount and in percentage, depending on the situations as they existed in the districts.    (See Tables 2 and 3.)
3. The 1938 arrangement (which is explained later in this report) has not been
made to apply to all districts; for various reasons, rightly or wrongly, Heffley, Cawston, Peachland, and Oyama were not, or could not, be included in it.
4. By some districts substantial repayments have been maintained to the Conservation Fund, while the works were of necessity permitted to deteriorate. By other
districts only token repayments have been made to the Conservation Fund, while large
sums have been spent on replacements. (This point is developed in the statements
with regard to the various districts.)
5. Some districts, such as Vernon and Black Mountain, require heavy expenditures for maintenance and reserves, while in other districts, such as Creston and Wynndel, the works are so constructed physically that low maintenance and only moderate
replacement reserves are required.
6. The original cost and accrued indebtedness per acre varies materially with the
districts.   "(See Table 3.)
7. All areas are not of equal productivity.
8. All districts vary with regard to kinds of fruits and vegetables produced, and
also with regard to kinds and varieties of other crops.
Annual Repayment.
It has been suggested that annual repayments might be made on a sliding scale,
the amount increasing with the increasing returns from the land and decreasing in
the years of falling returns; that there should be a payment varying with the price
of fruits and vegetables.
The suggestion undoubtedly has merit, and might readily be applied to new
projects.
After studying the history, the various write-offs, adjustments and arrangements
of the present districts, however, I am of the opinion that such a new type of adjustment would be simply the introduction of another disturbing factor and would lead to
further confusion. Consequently, with most districts facing heavy replacements in the
near and more distant future, and with little or no new money likely to be available
from the Conservation Fund for replacement purposes, it seems logical to suggest that
the principle of the present arrangement (1938), which is acceptable to most districts,
be made applicable to all in whatever modified form is necessary in order to make it
practicable. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION.
AA 17
Table 1.—Comparative Statement of Present Payments to Conservation Fund, Annual
Amounts required for Replacements and Annual Charges levied (as in 1945).
Irrigated
Acreage.
Indebtedness as at
March 15,
1945.
Payment.
Annual Amount
required for
Renewals.
Irrigation
District.
Amount.
1945 Percentage
of Indebtedness.
Per Irrigated
Acre.
Amount.
Per Irrigated
Acre.
per Acre,
1944.
3,900
257
1,250
1,900
2,225
1,633
430
960
150'
867
350
400
2,300
262
863
2,560
3,400
7,200
650
1,823
450
$381,764
7,333
167,873
89,973
Nil
11,258
Nil
57,034
Nil
57,742
10,000
7,812
Nil
8,921
18,534
197,367
Nil
475,236
18,891
13,396
26,668
$7,566
Nil
6,658
1,438
Nil
989
Nil
1,911
Nil
2,626
Nil
Nil
Nil
342
881
6,000
Nil
3,575
893
707
1,534
1.98
Nil
3.97
1.60
Nil
8.80
Nil
3.35
Nil
4.55
Nil
Nil
Nil
3.84
4.75
3.05
Nil
0.75
4.72
5.27
5.74
$1.94
Nil
5.33
.75
Nil
.66
Nil
2.00
Nil
3.00
Nil
Nil
Nil
1.30
1.02
2.34
Nil
.50
1.37
.39
3.40
$6,600
1,700
1,250
9,241
4,450
1,720
3,000
4,250
300
5,610
3,500
1,545
970
500
4,850
26,827
2,739
1,000
$1.70
6.60
1.00
4.85
2.00
1.05
7.00
4.43
2.00
6.47
10.00
3.90
3.70
.60
1.90
3.70
4.20
2.20
$9.35
Cawston	
12.00
5.00
9.20
8.65
Heffley	
3.10
15.37
Keremeos	
Malcolm Horie*	
Naramata	
11.25
3.25
20.00
23.00
17.75
14.00
4.00
3.37
10.90
10.44
5.35
8.81
10.00
4.00
* Not included in the terms of reference.
Okanagan Falls is not included in this table.
Note.—Penticton and Summerland are municipal systems and do not levy for replacements, while Winfield is
operated by a company which has made no provision for replacements.
Black Mountain and Winfield irrigation charges have been increased for 1945.
Naramata and Peachland made an extra levy in 1944—the normal charges would be $12.50 and $12 respectively. AA 18
THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
Table 2.—Conservation Fund—Comparative Statement.
District.
Relief given
per Acre.
Still owing
per Acre.
Annual Payment to Gov't
per Acre.
$197.00
169.00
133.00
130.00
126.00
104.00
98.00
69.00
63.00
37.00
33.00
27.00
19.00
$77.00
98.00
19.00
66.00
48.00
67.00
29.00
$2.34
.74
.50
.75
3.00
1.37
33.00
29.00
21.00
60.00
1.30
1.02
2.00
18.00         1         134.00
5.33
16.00
11.OO
10.00
7.00
4.00
Heffley	
7.00
60.00
3.40
28.00
7.00
Winfield                                                                        	
.39
* These districts are not included in the terms of reference.
East Creston and Wynndel: Only small amounts were written off, as the moneys were for new schemes and
they had not borrowed money in 1930, and the works were for domestic water as well as for irrigation.
Grand Forks had 95 per cent, written off, as it was considered an uneconomical scheme from the first and much
land has reverted to the Government.
Summerland had 100 per cent, written off, as the money was used to enable the municipality to obtain more
water from Trout Creek by getting the Experimental Farm to take water from Okanagan Lake.
The relief varied in other districts between 30 and 64 per cent., dependent on the difficulties in each district—in
other words, on the necessities of the case.
The average amount written off in relation to the principal borrowed plus the accrued interest was approximately 50 per cent.
Table 3.—Comparative Statement—Conservation Fund (per Irrigated Acre).
* Not included in the terms of reference.
Note.—The percentages relate to accrued indebtedness.
The amounts represent per irrigated acre indebtedness, etc., as at March 31st, 1945.
District.
Accrued
Indebtedness.
Principal and
Interest repaid.
Principal and
Interest
written off.
Principal and
Interest
still owing.
$
296
35
220
247
207
38
96
94
28
263
65
204
36
139
90
323
4
249
134
11
107
$
65
7
68
95
10
20
32
15
20
98
3
55
21
69
42
77
58
36
4
37
Per Cent.
22
20
31
39
5
53
33
16
75
37
4
27
56
50
47
24
23
27
36
35
$
133
18
105
197
11
63
19
Per Cent.
45
8
42
95
29
67
20
$
98
28
134
47
7
60
67
29
19
33
21
77
66
29
7
60
Per Cent.
33
80
61
Glenmore	
19
Heffley	
18
64
Malcolm Horie*	
7         |        25
98                   37
33         1        51
130                  64
16                  44
26
45
9
Robson	
37
27
169
4
125
26
30
53
100
50
24
23
24
27
Winfield -.	
69
	
10
51
9
22
64
56 DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 19
HISTORICAL STATEMENT.
The terms of reference ask a simple and direct question: " How much each of the
following corporations can pay annually in respect of its indebtedness to the Province."
This implies some difference of opinion. In order to get a clear understanding of the
situation, it is necessary to go briefly into history.
The following is quoted in part from a statement prepared by the Comptroller of
Water Rights:—
" In 1918 the Conservation Fund was set up to make loans to rebuild the irrigation systems which had been constructed by land selling companies and for which no
money was available for the replacement of perishable structures. Monies were loaned
to Improvement (Irrigation) Districts to be repaid within a limit of thirty years.
Due to the collapse of markets, two moratoria were given. The districts defaulted in
making repayments and after various investigations relief was given to the extent of
$930,962.79, the major reduction being in the year 1930.
" The Districts continued to default and after a further investigation the then
Minister of Lands, Mr. Lougheed, recommended an adjustment. The reductions under
this adjustment were not uniform but varied according to the importunities or difficulties in the several Districts. This adjustment, while scaling down the debts in most
cases, required that repayments be made over a period of thirty years. However, while
this requirement indicated that the monies loaned, less the amounts written off, were
to be repaid to the Government, it did not provide for any re-loans to again replace
the perishable structures which were rebuilt in 1920 and 1921, and for many of the
original structures which still remained to be replaced. In other words the Fund was
not looked upon as a revolving fund which the necessities of the situation required.
" In 1938 adjustments were again requested by the Districts on consideration of
which the Government decided that no further loans would be made from the Conservation Fund and instructed Major MacDonald, the then Comptroller, to work out a
formula whereby the Districts could accumulate a reserve fund for replacements and
not call on the Government for financial assistance. This formula was prepared and
accepted by the then Premier, Mr. Pattullo, and the late Mr. Wells Gray, the Minister
of Lands. It provided that out of the levies the Districts made on the water users,
an amount, determined by the Comptroller of Water Rights, should be set aside in a
Reserve Fund and the balance over and above that required for the operation of the
irrigation systems should be paid to the Government. This latter sum was to be considered as a payment-in-full for the annual amounts which had been set up by Order-
in-Council 751 (which authorized the 1933 adjustment) and is authorized from time
to time by Order-in-Council after payments are made.
" This practice has been followed for the last seven years. In effect it means that
the Government continues to write off portions of the indebtedness every year and if
continued all the Districts which borrowed money should be free of debt within the
thirty years prescribed under Order-in-Council No. 751 of 1933. As mentioned previously, this arrangement was inaugurated to overcome the necessity of the Districts
seeking further loans for replacements, but of course the effectiveness of this must be
gauged by the condition of the Renewal Reserve funds the Districts were instructed
to set up. While on the whole the Districts have complied with the conditions prescribed, some objected strongly to the Branch (Water Rights) controlling the withdrawals from these Funds and were determined to use the funds for extensions and
betterments for which no allowance had been made when determining the annual
amount each District should contribute to its Fund.
" In four Districts, i.e., Cawston, Heffley, Oyama, and Peachland, the 1938 arrangement was not made applicable for reasons given in the review under the respective
headings. AA 20 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
" After a review in 1945 of the conditions in the Districts indebted to the Conservation Fund by the Honourable the Minister of Lands and Forests, he considered
that owing to the much better financial positions the water users should be in after a
period of much greater returns for produce than were obtainable when the 1933 and
1938 arrangements were put into effect, that the latter arrangement should be superseded and a more satisfactory arrangement for the Government should be substituted
and that further instructions should be given to the Trustees respecting future
repayments.
" The suggestion was therefore made that each District should pay annually to
the Government the interest charge on its indebtedness and a contribution toward the
repayment of the principal. This, however, did not appeal to the Trustees of the Districts owing the money and they requested the appointment of a Royal Commission to
investigate the ability of the Districts to repay the moneys borrowed, while at the
same time expressed themselves as satisfied with the 1938 arrangement.
" The total amount of money borrowed together with the accrued interest to the
15th March, 1946, is $6,011,706.00, of which $1,531,638.00 is paid; $2,932,689.00
written off or forgiven and $1,547,379.00 is still owing.
" It seems reasonable, unless the construction of irrigation works is to be subsidized, that interest should be paid on the outstanding indebtedness and the principal
repaid within a period of years. Since the Conservation Fund was set up nearly fifty
per cent, of the indebtedness has been written off and a continuation of the 1938
arrangement means further subsidization. Should this latter be deemed inevitable
then consideration must be given to a similar policy respecting any new scheme on
which it is proposed to loan money.    .
" Irrespective of the policy that may be decided on with regard to the present
indebtedness, I am satisfied that it cannot be expressed in a simple formula if it is
desired to have it apply equitably to all of the debtor districts."
Order in Council No. 751, June 5th, 1933.
Order in Council No. 751, approved June 5th, 1933, is of importance and possibly
basic. It is the Order in Council by which the debts of the various districts were
reduced.    The following is quoted in part only from this Order in Council:—
" That after careful investigation and examination on the ground, it is considered
necessary and in the public interest not to require payment in full of the amounts set
out in the preceding paragraph, and that the said amounts be reduced to the sums, and
the terms of repayment herein recommended.
" And to recommend that the sums owing by the undermentioned corporations,
and the times and terms of repayment be determined as follows:—
Black Mountain Irrigation District  $300,000.00
Cawston Irrigation District        3,152.39
East Creston Irrigation District     164,420.60
Glenmore Irrigation District       87,780.00
Grand Forks Irrigation District  Nil
Heffley Irrigation District       15,000.00
Kaleden Irrigation District       31,694.38
Keremeos Irrigation District       55,383.67
Naramata Irrigation District       65,000.00
Oyama Irrigation District       14,087.10
Peachland Irrigation District        5,741.00
Corporation of the District of Penticton      28,000.00
Robson Irrigation District       11,638.96 DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 21
Scotty Creek Development District  $20,000.00
South-east Kelowna Irrigation District  200,000.00
Vernon Irrigation District  435,000.00
Westbank Irrigation District  20,000.00
Winfield and Okanagan Centre Irrigation District  12,533.82
Wynndel Irrigation District  30,000.00
" In respect of the indebtedness of the said corporations as set out above, the said
corporations respectively shall pay into the Conservation Fund thirty equal annual
instalments, each of which shall be seven hundred and twenty-six ten-thousandths of
the respective amounts of the indebtedness of the said corporations. The first instalments payable by the said corporations respectively shall be due and payable on the
following dates respectively:—
Black Mountain Irrigation District  March 15,1934
Cawston Irrigation District ,  March 15,1934
East Creston Irrigation District  March 15,1935
Glenmore Irrigation District  March 15,1937
Heffley Irrigation District  March 15,1934
Kaleden Irrigation District  March 15,1935
Keremeos Irrigation District  March 15,1937
Naramata Irrigation District  March 15,1937
Oyama Irrigation District  March 15,1939
Peachland Irrigation District  March 15,1939
The Corporation of the District of Penticton  March 15,1934
Robson Irrigation District  March 15,1934
Scotty Creek Irrigation District  March 15,1934
South-east Kelowna Irrigation District  March 15,1934
Vernon Irrigation District  March 15,1934
Westbank Irrigation District  March 15,1934
Wynndel Irrigation District  March 15, 1935
Winfield and Okanagan Centre Irrigation District  March 15,1934 "
Order in Council No. 751 was amended on August 15th, 1936. This Order in
Council (No. 974) goes into much detail, but with certain explanations writes down
the interest rate from 6 to 4V2 per cent. The annual payment authorized under Order
in Council No. 974 is six hundred and twenty ten-thousandths of the respective amounts
of the indebtedness—that is, the indebtedness was amortized over a period of thirty
years at 4% per cent.
THE 1938 ARRANGEMENT.
In 1938 another adjustment was made.    This is explained in the paragraphs that
An Example of the 1938 Arrangement.
Copy of letter from Comptroller of Water Rights to the Glenmore District, April
13th, 1938 (Exhibit No. 61) :—
W. R. Reid, Esq.,
Secretary,
Glenmore Irrigation District,
Kelowna, B.C.
Dear Sir,
Pursuant to our conversations on the 15th March last, I have to advise that
until further instructed the Trustees of your District are requested to make provision
in their bylaws in accordance with the following data: AA 22 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
That on the basis that 1,772 acres of land in the District are revenue producing
the budget should include:—
$7,571.00 for the Renewal Reserve,
$1,891.00 for the repayments to the Conservation Fund.
The calculations from which the base rate, which determines the amount payable
to the Conservation Fund, is found, is as follows:
Acreage:
Irrigable land in the District—2,566 acres.
Revenue producing acreage—1,772 acres.
Conservation Fund repayment as previously required $6,124.00
Renewal Reserve estimated average annual amount
necessary over a period of five years $7,571.00
Total of Conservation Fund and Renewal Reserve $13,695.00
Base rate per acre ($13,695 -f- 2,566) $5.34
This rate when multiplied by the revenue producing acreage, which for the time
being is considered as 1,772, indicates a revenue of $9,462.00 for the combined
Renewal Reserve and Conservation Fund.    Deducting the sum of $7,571 for the
Renewal Reserve from this indicated revenue, a balance of $1,891 is available to
the Conservation Fund.    Should the revenue producing acreage in any year be
more or less than the estimated figure of 1,772, the amount returnable to the Fund
will vary accordingly.   As, however, your District has an estimated value of liquid
assets of $17,277, the Water Board will approve a bylaw setting a tax rate of
$4.00 per acre with the understanding that the deficiency in revenue resulting
from the lower rate will be made good from the proceeds of the liquid assets.
A copy of the budget should accompany the tax bylaw when it is submitted for
registration.
The tax bylaw as well as the tolls or revenue bylaw for the year 1938 should be
submitted to the Water Board before the 1st June next and until further advised the
bylaws for the subsequent years are to be submitted for registration on or before the
15th March in each and every year.
Tax Sales must be held once each year as provided in Section 272 of the Water
Act and for the year 1938 should not be held later than the 1st December next.
Respecting the Renewal Reserve you are requested to open a special account in
your bank and to arrange that withdrawals from this account can only be effected over
the signature of one of your Trustees and one member of the Water Board. This
reserve must be credited with the sum of $7,571 on or before the close of your District's
fiscal year. It is understood that this account is to be drawn upon for renewals which
are approved by me and for investing the surplus money (over and above that required
for current renewals) in approved securities. The proceeds from such securities must
likewise only be expended on approved renewals.
Yours very truly,
Comptroller of Water Rights.
Similar letters were written to the secretaries of all other districts that came under
this arrangement and to the secretaries of some other districts. The letters, while
resembling the above quoted in principle and plan, differ in detail.
Please note that the first paragraph of the letter above quoted contains the words
" until further instructed." These words were discussed at length and much evidence
was given with regard to their intent. Do the words refer to the whole arrangement,
including the formula on which payments were to be based, or do they refer only to the
details and figures within the formula? DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 23
The practice, principle, and plan set forth in the letters to the secretaries of the
districts in 1938 have been followed since that time.
Briefly, it was a plan to relieve the individual district of its indebtedness to the
Conservation Fund to the extent of the amount of taxes that would have been levied on
lands that had reverted to the district and were no longer taxable because they were
not productive, and also to provide sufficient funds for Renewal Reserve.
Example (Glenmore, 1938) :—
Estimated cost of renewals for five years  $37,854.00
Estimated   cost   of   renewals   for   one   year—$37,854.00
divided by 5       7,571.00
To be set aside for Conservation Fund (Order in Council
No. 751)       6,124.00
$13,695.00
Original acreage—irrigable land in the district 2,566 acres
Basic rate per acre—$13,695.00 divided by 2,566 acres. $5,337 ($5.34)
Present irrigated or revenue-producing acreage 1,772 acres
Total tax—1,772 acres multiplied by $5.34  $9,462.48
Required for renewals     7,571.00
Balance for Conservation Fund  $1,891.48
The five-year average of renewals (this average may be for more years than five)
is added to the annual instalment to the Conservation Fund. The total of this is
divided by the original irrigable acreage as agreed on in 1938, which gives the basic
rate per acre. The present irrigated or revenue-producing acreage is multiplied by the
basic rate per acre, which gives the total tax levy for that year. From this total is
deducted the five-year average for renewals, which leaves the amount payable to the
Conservation Fund for that year. Whatever this amount is, it is deemed to be payment
in full for the instalment for that year; namely, $1,891.48 in lieu of $6,124 in the case
of Glenmore in 1938.
Variable Factors.
From the above example it will be noted that there are at least four variable factors
in the formula used in the 1938 arrangement:—
(1.)  The amount of Renewal Reserve.    This may be changed only with the
approval of the Comptroller of Water Rights.
(2.)  The number of revenue-producing acres.    This will vary as lands which
have reverted for non-payment of taxes come back into production, or as
further lands revert for non-payment.
(3.)  The base  rate per  acre.    This will  vary  as  the  amount  of  Renewal
Reserve is increased or decreased.
(4.) The amount actually paid into the Conservation Fund each year.    This
will vary in accordance with a change in any of the first three variable
factors.
The factors which remain constant are as follows:—
(1.)  The  annual   instalment  to  the   Conservation   Fund  as  determined  by
Order in Council No. 751, 1933, and its amendment, Order in Council
No. 974, 1936.
(2.) The total number of irrigable acres.    This remains as set in 1938. AA 24 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
Quoted from Department records: " Since 1933 only two or three small loans have
been made from the Conservation Fund, and it was because of requests for further
loans to enable replacements to be made that the Government realized that another
adjustment had to be made.    This resulted in the 1938 adjustment."
A Renewal Reserve.
As previously indicated, the general history from 1938 on brings into prominence
a very important fact. The indebtedness to the Conservation Fund had generally been
incurred years earlier for the purchase of the systems from private companies and for
making certain necessary and immediate repairs in order to keep the systems operating.
They were kept operating, but owing to the difficult conditions in the industry (and in
agriculture and the country as a whole) financial provision for reyiewal of these systems
was not made before 1938. In so far as I am aware, the 1938 arrangement was the first
attempt to correct that situation.
At the same time, under that 1938 arrangement the districts were asked to make
some annual payment—even though only a token payment—on their indebtedness to the
Conservation Fund.
Now, in 1946, because of improved conditions in the industry, it has been suggested
that the districts make larger payments on that indebtedness—indebtedness incurred in
the years immediately following 1918 and adjusted in different years thereafter up to
1938. In effect, and generally speaking, this is asking the districts to pay something
more now towards the cost of certain materials in the systems, which materials have
long since become less serviceable and in many instances have been wholly replaced.
It is asking them to pay for systems that in part have long since been worn out, while
at the same time they must provide the funds for the renewal of the systems as they
exist to-day.
The Situation is met.
It seems to me that the men who negotiated the 1938 arrangement recognized the
difficulties of this situation and made an attempt to deal with it.
As indicated elsewhere, three important objects of this plan were:—
(1.) To relieve the district of its indebtedness to the Conservation Fund to
the extent of the amount of taxes that would have been levied on lands
that had reverted to the district and were no longer taxable because they
were not productive.
(2.)  To ensure provision of sufficient funds with which to renew the systems.
(3.)  To discourage the districts from asking for additional borrowings from
the Conservation Fund.
The interpretation put on the 1938 arrangement by the irrigation districts was
that it was a final arrangement.    This point of view was strongly emphasized by
Captain C. R. Bull, who in 1938 was member of the Legislative Assembly for the South
Okanagan and took an active interest in trying to reach a settlement.
This interpretation was substantially confirmed in an interview with, and later by
a signed statement from, Major J. C. MacDonald (Comptroller of Water Rights in
1938), and in an interview with the Honourable T. D. Pattullo, then Premier. After
making the necessary reservations (Major MacDonald could not commit the Government
at all, and " any letters written by him would have only the following meaning: This is
my understanding of that Order in Council and this is the way that we as bookkeepers
are keeping it "), Major MacDonald stated:—
" I would be inclined to say ' until further instructed ' means that this rate was set
for that year, the year following, and unless some other arrangement was set up, because DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 25
there have been so many arrangements by way of a moratorium and various things of
that sort.
" The Government said: ' You have now got to take care of yourselves and there
will be no further advances.    Therefore you have got to set up a Renewal Reserve.'
" ' Until further instructed ' merely means a revision of these calculations based
on a change in the Renewal Reserve or a change in the revenue-producing acreage.
The plan stood."
The Honourable T. D. Pattullo made the following statement:—
" That this was intended to be a final settlement, but there is no finality in Government. More than getting the capital payments, I wanted to see these people stand on
their own feet and make their own replacements and not draw on the Conservation
Fund."
The other persons who took part in most of the 1938 arrangement negotiations
were the late Honourable Wells Gray and the late Honourable Dr. K. C. Macdonald.
What the 1938 Arrangement included.
1. The Government could put a receiver into any district that did not live up to the
arrangement.
2. The Government wanted to be completely apart and not responsible for additional
capital loans to districts that had come under the Conservation Fund (see Bull., p. 19,
Glenmore evidence). In this respect it was effective, except where a catastrophe
occurred.
3. The building-up of a Renewal Reserve Fund based on the average replacement
requirement over a five-year period (more years or less, depending on the district).
This was basic and absolutely sound and necessary.
4. If the Renewal Reserve requirement went up, the Government might get a lesser
payment to the Conservation Fund.
5. If the Renewal Reserve requirement went down, the Government might get a
larger payment to the Conservation Fund.
6. The Renewal Reserve requirement is subject to discussion between the Comptroller of Water Rights and the district, but in the final analysis must be approved by
the Comptroller of Water Rights. This places control in the hands of the Water Rights
Branch.
7. The token payment—whatever amount is left over after renewals have been
provided for—when paid to the Government is deemed to be payment in full for the
instalment to the Conservation Fund for that year (i.e., the instalment required in the
1933 Order in Council No. 751).    On this basis the debt is amortized in thirty years.
8. The amount of total tax collected for renewals and Conservation Fund also
varies with the total acreage irrigated, or the revenue-producing acreage. As the irrigated acreage in the district increases, the payment to the Conservation Fund could
increase. If the total irrigated acreage decreases, the payment to the Government
could decrease.
9. The only debatable point in the arrangement is the amount to be set aside for
renewals (see Bull., p. 15, Black Mountain evidence). In the final analysis the Government decides this. (In cases where this amount has been too low to take care of
the requirements, the districts have had to borrow from a bank or to make special
assessments, or both.)
10. The districts could, after 1938, stand on their own feet, whereas before they
had been constantly going back to the Government for more money, especially for
renewals.
11. The 1938 arrangement is not workable when the revenue-producing acreage
is so low that the total tax collected is less than the Renewal Reserve requirement.   In AA 26 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
such cases the debt tends to increase, as no payment is made to the Conservation Fund
and the interest accumulates. Examples of such cases are Peachland, Oyama, and
Cawston.   The 1938 arrangement was not made to apply to these districts.
12. It is possible to conceive of a situation or situations where the 1938 arrangement might not work at all for many of the districts. For example, if prices and
incomes were very low for a period of years and replacement costs remained high and
were extensive in amount, many of the districts would find themselves in the same
position as Peachland is in to-day (1946), where the total tax does not equal the estimated replacement reserve. The Government then would get nothing and debts would
tend to increase.
13. The basic rate per acre used in the 1938 formula changes with the amount
required in the Renewal Reserve. If the Renewal Reserve requirement increases, the
basic rate per acre increases. If the Renewal Reserve requirement decreases, the basic
rate per acre decreases.
14. The Renewal Reserve requirement is figured at stated intervals, but in the
main represents an average requirement over a five-year period.
In my opinion the 1938 arrangement was an agreement and should be upheld, not
only because it ivas an agreement, but also because it is sensible and reasonable in its
requirements.
The recommendations are based on the assumption that it will be accepted in
principle and made workable for all districts.
Where and when for various reasons the principle of the 1938 arrangement cannot
be made applicable, a minimum token payment is recommended.
The Question of Rising Costs.
Definite consideration must be given to the problem of rising costs. I can conceive of situations in a number of the districts where replacement costs may become
so heavy that the total assessment under the 1938 arrangement would not be sufficiently
large to meet them. Because of this, in some cases payments to the Conservation Fund
have been written down so as to make possible the accumulation of additional reserves
while fruit and vegetable prices are relatively high. The spirit of the 1938 arrangement is upheld, but the letter has been softened in order to meet particular situations.
Charge to Time and Inexperience.
It appears that some additional indebtedness will have to be charged to time, trial
and error, and inexperience, but it should pay dividends on future developments in
new improvement districts because there has been built up over a period of thirty years
or more a large body of experience and knowledge that should prove to be not only
useful but invaluable.
SOME GENERAL COMMENTS.
Increase in Material and Labour Costs (Maintenance and Replacements),
1939-46.
The secretaries of all districts were asked to submit statements on the relative
costs of materials and labour in 1946 as compared with those in 1939. While the statements vary considerably, there is, nevertheless, a definite indication that costs have
markedly increased.
This increase in costs of labour and materials must be made up by increased tolls
for operation and by increased assessments for replacement purposes. These increases
are important and have carried considerable weight in my thinking with regard to the
amounts the various districts can pay on their indebtedness. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION.
AA 27
Table 4.—Percentage Increase in Material and Labour Costs (Maintenance and
Replacements), 1939-46.
District.
Labour.
Supervision
and
Office.
Steel
Pipe.
Wood
Pipe.
Cement.
Lumber.
Per Cent.
100.00
39.13*
85.71
62.50
92.30
68.42*
116.67
62.50
40.00t
50.00
71.42
42.86
66.67
83.33
100.00*
Per Cent.
29.41
10&.33
Per Cent.
»
Per Cent.
t
Per Cent.
4.17
95.74
.
7.53
Per Cent.
150.58
152.38
25.00t
87.91
35.94*
163 16
Heffley             	
33.33
33.33
66.67
26.28*
150.00
13.50*
*
15.00
160.00
24.11
117.50*
170.00
60.00
178.33*
50.00
66.67
2.68
4.35
2.11
90.00
30.00*§
65.38
30.00t
61.23*
103.66*
39.29*
26.80*
195.80*
36.36
121.00*
Winfield	
20.00f
* Average of several items.
t Estimate.
X No increase.
_ Increase since 1923.
The Cost of Packing is rising.
The following statement was presented by the Okanagan Federated Shippers
Association, which organization represents practically all fruit-packing plants in the
Okanagan and Kootenay area of British Columbia, and is submitted to show the increase
in the cost of packing apples at the present time as compared with the cost in 1938:—
" In the period from 1936 to 1941, packing costs remained fairly constant, varying
from year to year more as a result of the size of the crop than any difference in the cost
of materials.
" However, from 1941 costs of packing have advanced as follows:—
Cents per Box. Cents per Box.
1941  42 1944  57
1942  48 1945  62
1943  54 1946 (estimated)  70
" These advances have occurred in spite of every effort to restrict them. The
incentive to hold packing-house costs to a minimum lies in the fact that all produce of
equal grade, variety, size, etc., is sold at a uniform price f.o.b. cars at shipping-point,
or at least nets a uniform price to the packing-houses, and the packing-houses must
therefore keep their charges at the lowest possible level if they wish to remain in
business, as all packing charges are deducted from the returns on the fruit and are
borne by the growers.
" An increase of 28 cents in the cost of packing apples between 1941 and 1946 is an
extremely heavy additional charge upon the grower, and represents an increase of
66 per cent.
" The probabilities are that these packing costs will not be reduced for some time
to come. In the first place, no one will wish to reduce wages until it becomes an
absolute necessity. With respect to materials, and these consist mostly of wooden
containers and paper, there is nothing to encourage this industry to feel that costs will
be reduced for some considerable time.    Our box price at present is below economic AA 28 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
levels, and while our estimated cost of packing for 1946 reflects an increase of
approximately 6 cents in the cost of containers, there is no assurance that this will not
be again increased in the near future."
Codling-moth.
After 1926 the responsibility for control of codling-moth was put almost entirely
on the grower. At one time in the early '20's only one or two, or at most three, sprays
were necessary. At the present time six to seven sprays are necessary in all districts
to control this insect pest. These sprays cost from $50 to $90 per acre. When spraying
is not done effectively, the fruit in most instances has to be disposed of at a loss.
The Districts have been paying for Original Systems while replacing them.
Speaking generally, the districts have been paying about all they could bear over a
period of years, and these payments have been made under close supervision since 1939.
If the establishment of an irrigation project involved merely the borrowing of a
specific sum' for the installation of a permanent system and the repayment of this
amount over a period of time, the situation would be relatively simple. But the
systems, once built, must be maintained and in the course of time rebuilt. Many of the
systems were built around thirty (sometimes more) years ago, and now many of the
districts are faced with the necessity of undertaking large replacement programmes
while still owing in part for the original systems.
Obviously the districts cannot meet both charges at the same time—not without
difficulty and hardship. Additional borrowing from the Conservation Fund for replacement is, in my opinion, inadvisable. The districts should stand on their own feet.
Consequently, heavy taxation has been necessary in order to make provision for the
essential replacements.
Due to the increased cost of labour, wooden pipe, steel pipe, and other essential
materials, it is expected that these costs will advance by at least 40 per cent.
In my opinion, since repayment and replacement over a long period of time cannot
both be met without undue hardship and since consequently one or the other must be
left unsatisfied, it should not be the tax for replacements.
The 1938 arrangement made this objective possible, and to a large degree the
districts have taken advantage of the terms of this arrangement and the admittedly
improved financial position of the grower in recent years either to rebuild deteriorated
parts of the works or to build up reserves with which to renew the works in the future.
Efficacy of the Irrigation Systems.
The ability of land to pay irrigation charges depends upon the effectiveness of the
irrigation supplied. The requirements vary, depending upon the slope of the land, the
type of soil, and the kind of crop to be produced. If insufficient water is supplied,
the resultant crop may not warrant the irrigation charges. For instance, if it takes
from 3 to 4 acre-feet of water to produce the highest yield of apples, peaches, apricots,
and plums in a given area, and only 2 acre-feet of water are made available by the
irrigation system, the productivity will be correspondingly less per acre and the land
so supplied may not produce a crop of highest quantity and quality. Under such
circumstances the land might not be able to bear the irrigation charges for the 2 acre-
feet of water, whereas with more water the same land might well be able to bear much
higher charges.    (The figures used are for purposes of illustration only.)
This is a factor which enters largely into the ability to pay of the various districts.
In some cases the systems are not constructed to carry sufficient water for the acreage DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 29
irrigated; in other cases there is not sufficient storage water on which to draw during
the latter part of the season.
The 1938 arrangement tends to encourage limitation rather than extension of the
irrigated acreages. Generally speaking, only a limited amount of water can be
delivered. The funds raised for renewals (replacements) may not be used for extensions of or additions to the systems, and additions can be made only from special
assessments or by additional borrowings. With limited water in most districts there
is a tendency to use it to try to increase production on present acreage rather than to
bring reverted lands back into production. (Westbank and Peachland are exceptions.)
This seems to be sound practice for the established districts.
This lack of new irrigated lands has been an important factor in forcing up the
price of producing property to markedly inflated levels. It has also encouraged subdivision of larger holdings into non-economic units.
Effect of Insufficient Water-supply on Cost of Production.
Insufficient supply of water also affects the cost of production.
As the unit cost of production increases with decreased volume, costs will be higher
where insufficient water prevents the production of the maximum crop per acre. For
example, where there is insufficient water for an orchard, the fruit does not size up
properly, the trees cannot be maintained in a vigorous condition, and therefore fewer
packed boxes are produced per acre. Total cost per acre, however, will be practically
the same, and the cost per packed box will be correspondingly higher. The net returns
to the grower per box will therefore be less.
Adequate water must be supplied if low production cost is to be attained.
Expanding the Systems.
Under the terms of reference it has not been possible to deal with the advisability
of extending or expanding any of the systems. The Renewal Reserve Fund can be used
only for renewal of the present systems. At times, however, it undoubtedly would be
of advantage to the districts, and enhance their ability to pay, could the systems be
enlarged or extended or rebuilt in different places.
There is no doubt but that careful study should be made of every system, with the
object of making more water available to the present lands or making water available
for new lands.    If expansion is to take place, this is essential.
There is now a sufficient body of data collected and invaluable experience at hand
on which to base an economical expansion programme.
Can all the Indebtedness be paid ?
As I understand the general policy, it is to keep the districts functioning and
producing, and not to force any one of them into the hands of a receiver. Not only the
growers, but several large towns and cities are dependent wholly on the continuous
functioning of primary industry, and I concur in the general thought that business
must go on.
There has been no suggestion of mismanagement or of gross inefficiency in any
district, but rather one large ever-present question has been pressed upon me. Over
a period of years previous to 1941, as much as twenty-five in some districts, the industry
could not pay. And over this period the dams, ditches, dykes, and flumes were getting
older and in a less healthy state of repair; the tangible assets were depreciating.
Tax sales were not unusual, and some land was taken out of intensive production. AA 30 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
With these thoughts in mind I have no hesitation in confirming the general insistence on the part of the Water Rights Branch and the Minister of Lands in recent
years:—
(1.)  That the present tolls collected must be sufficient to maintain and operate
the system.
(2.)  That the tax collected must be sufficiently large to permit of the building-
up of a replacement reserve, and then if anything is left over to provide
for at least a token payment to the Conservation Fund.
This has been sound policy.    The assets of the systems have been maintained and
improved in most districts, the replacement reserves have been strengthened or parts of
some systems replaced, and some repayments have been made to the Conservation Fund.
After going over the physical systems, observing the general conditions, and noting
the tolls necessary for maintenance and operation, I cannot help but feel that the
emphasis should, for some years at least, be placed on additional replacements and the
building-up of replacement reserves.
In the meantime some repayments are being made and, in some districts where
adequate water is available, additional revenue-producing acreages are being brought
into production.
A Ceiling Price for Administration Purposes only.
I have intimated elsewhere, but in other words, that there is always a tendency to
capitalize economic and social advantages in the value of the land. This leads to a
general " upping " of prices by owners and to a raising of offers by prospective buyers.
The advantages may be of a temporary or less permanent nature, but the sum, once paid
for a property, becomes an investment in that property which may be beyond the
productive capacity of the property to meet.
All buyers do not pay cash for their properties. Some purchase on a share-crop
basis; some purchase on the basis of a down payment and mortgage given for the
balance. Interest must then be paid. It can readily be seen that in those districts
where as much as 50 per cent, of the areas has changed hands in recent years at
advancing prices, there is a markedly increased capital investment and interest charge.
This makes more difficult the finding of money for the Conservation Fund by the new
operator, especially when he must first live and then pay a municipal tax and a school
tax and a replacement tax before anything can be set aside for the Conservation Fund.
This latter tax to him seems far removed from his everyday financial problems. He
likely had given it little consideration at time of purchase.
I beg to suggest that consideration be given to the establishment of a ceiling price,
or series of ceiling prices, for all classifications of land in all the districts, and when
once the land advanced beyond that ceiling price, the first increment would belong to
the Government and would be used to reimburse the Conservation Fund when the
property changed hands. The property could not be charged more than its proportionate share of the total district indebtedness, but from that time on it would be
mortgage-free as far as the Conservation Fund was concerned.
The security for the remaining total indebtedness would, of course, be reduced,
but the total indebtedness would have been reduced in like proportion. In my opinion
a much larger percentage of the total indebtedness can be collected in this way than
by the methods presently employed.
The period of rapidly advancing prices is now over. A new level has been
attained. During the last few years scores of parcels of land have changed hands at
markedly advanced prices. Many more will change hands. Those who have purchased
at the higher levels will, in many cases, if not in most cases, find themselves in the
position where all payments can be made only with great difficulty.    They will be in DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 31
the same economic position, but at higher price-levels, as that in which the orchardists
found themselves, at the lower price-levels, during the '30's. They may even find themselves in the position where it is necessary to seek additional loans from the Conservation Fund for much-needed replacements. These difficulties would be directly traceable to economic fluctuations and to the capitalization of advantages in land during a
period of good times.
/ can see little wrong with the Government requiring repayment to the Conservation Fund out of that portion of the sale price (when properties change hands) which
is over and above the suggested ceiling price per acre for that property.
Exercise of Direction.
The Water Rights Branch must continue to exercise control, not only over the
amount of the assessment for Renewal Reserve, but also over the withdrawal of funds
from the Renewal Reserve.    The 1938 letter says:—
" Respecting the Renewal Reserve you are requested to open a special account in
your bank and to arrange that withdrawals from this account can only be effected over
the signature of one of your Trustees and one member of the Water Board. This
reserve must be credited with the sum of $ on or before the close of your Dis
trict's fiscal year. It is understood that this account is to be drawn upon for renewals
which are approved by me and for investing the surplus money (over and above that
required for current renewals) in approved securities. The proceeds from such securities must likewise only be expended on approved renewals."
Some districts have not taken kindly to this.
I am of opinion that so long as any money is owing to the Conservation Fund, the
Water Rights Branch should continue to exercise this authority, and that the replacement funds should be spent only with the consent of the representative of the Branch.
This, in my opinion, is to the interest of the irrigation districts.
" Soldiers' Land Act."
The Southern Okanagan development is administered under the " Soldiers' Land
Act," chapter 80, 1918. Growers are charged $8 an acre for all purposes. The area
is not included in the terms of reference. The vote under the above Act for 1946-47
was $72,000.
DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME.
Gross Receipts.
A careful attempt has been made to discover the gross receipts' distribution in all
the districts. The figures follow, and the pattern is generally similar for all districts.
The striking features are, first, the unevenness of the distribution and, secondly, the
extremes of low and high receipts.
In all districts 50 per cent, of the growers receive approximately 80 per cent, or
more of the total gross income, leaving only 20 per cent, or less for the remaining 50
per cent, of the growers. The pattern is clear. There is no doubt about the ability of
a certain percentage to pay irrigation taxes and tolls and Dominion income tax. There
is also no doubt about the inability of a large percentage of the growers to pay any
additional tax.
The very low receipts may be due to many causes: some growers included are
back-yard growers having additional incomes; others have small ranches; others, low
yields;  and still others, quantities infested with codling-moth.
It can be stated, however, that although the figures may not be absolute, they are
indicative.   A very large percentage of the growers have very low gross receipts. AA 32 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
Table 5.—The Pattern of a District.
(Farms arranged in Ascending Order of Gross Receipts.)
39  $2,081.25          77  $4,832.39
40  2,219.44          78  4,898.09
41  2,231.52          79  4,932.26
42  2,377.53          80  4,963.32
43  2,447.38          81  5,023.89
44   2,503.08          82  5,032.48
45  2,621.98          83  5,114.19
46  2,675.07          84  5,395.74
47  2,686.50          85  5,641.07
48  2,823.82          86  5,686.67
49  2,832.28          87  5,855.09
50  2,868.49          88  5,956.20
51  2,876.44          89  6,005.73
52  2,958.32          90  6,084.00
53  2,983.45          91  6,090.60
54  2,985.82          92  6,098.77
55  3,064.34          93  6,118.99
56  3,154.26          94  6,152.75
57  3,157.82          95  6,170.74
58  3,177.93          96  6,336.78
59  3,223.49          97  6,489.23
60  3,291.57          98  6,654.92
61  3,424.30          99  6,674.80
62  3,633.61        100  6,838.97
63  3,763.53        101  6,843.77
64  3,839.86        102  7,000.43
65  3,854.85        103  7,515.01
66  3,932.41         104  7,532.99
67  4,265.72        105  8,613.68
68  4,360.88        106  9,098.18
69  4,465.92        107  9,351.99
70  4,499.14        108  9,493.16
71  4,543.96        109  9,642.14
72  4,581.68        110  9,887.52
73  4,633.98        111  10,191.24
74  4,646.06        112  16,031.22
75  4,707.07        113  16,148.66
76  4,710.25        114  23,321.98
The above is set out for purposes of illustration. It represents a well-balanced
district where there are relatively few very small or very large gross incomes. Only
a few of the gross incomes below $500 represent full-time growers. Most of them
represent back-yard sales. From $500 upwards, growers can be said, for the most
part, to be fully employed as orchardists. The pattern is typical of most communities,
except that in a few instances there are much greater extremes of large and small
gross incomes.
Gross and Net Costs.
While costs vary from year to year and no two farms have the same relationship
between gross and net incomes, and no one farm has the same percentage relationship
between gross and net incomes in any two years, representative percentages can, never-
1	
    $0.64
2	
     1.76
3	
     4.57
4	
     5.75
5	
     8.20
6	
     8.25
7	
     8.58
8	
     9.67
9	
    10.09
10	
    14.73
11	
    15.85
12	
    31.55
13	
    32.26
14	
    50.91
15	
    51.68
16	
    55.25
17	
    68.01
18	
   162.79
19	
   229.39
20	
   260.27
21	
   308.12
22	
   420.50
23	
   491.59
24	
   510.25
25	
  1,083.31
26	
  1,391.84
27
1,396.43
28	
  1,401.62
29	
  1,475.89
30	
  1,563.01
31	
  1,638.77
32	
  1,665.62
33	
  1,735.15
34	
  1,747.56
35	
  1,804.08
36	
  1,986.63
37	
  2,004.18
38	
  2,009.41 DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 33
theless, be estimated that will give some indication of relationship between gross and
net income.
Net Income Estimates.
For those who wish to estimate average net incomes, the following table is provided. The calculation will not give absolute figures for any one particular grower,
but will be indicative of the net return (return for labour of the operator and interest
on the investment) for the average of the income group.
Assuming that the crop is normal and that the low incomes are due to small
acreages or low yields of good fruit, the net operator incomes expressed in terms of a
percentage of the gross income would be approximately as follows:—
Table 6.—Net Operator Incomes expressed in per Cent, of Gross Receipts.
Net Returns
expressed in
Income Group. Percentage.
$0-   $500         70
500- 1,000  60-70
1,000- 2,000  50-60
2,000- 3,000  45-50
3,000- 5,000  40-45
5,000- 7,500  35-40
7,500-10,000.  35-40
10,000-15,000  25-40
15,000 and up  25-40
These are based on a small sample and, consequently, are rough estimates only.
As fruit prices fall, the percentage net return in relation to gross receipts tends to
decrease.
The percentages given above are based on statements provided by individual
growers. The percentages vary very much from farm to farm and from group to
group, and also from year to year, but the average figures given above are approximately correct.
(Note.—Operator income includes return to the operator for labour, management,
and interest on investment. If the low incomes were due to short crop, hail, wind, or
other catastrophe, there might readily be no operator income.)
Total Gross Sales.
Table 7.—Value of Shipments of Fruit, 1939-40, from Whole Okanagan Valley
(relative, not absolute).
1939      $5,073,000 1943   $11,037,000
1940        5,437,000 1944      19,596,000
1941        7,176,000 1945      16,330,000
1942      10,059,000
Comparable Values of Shipments of Fruit, 1931-38.
1931   $3,600,000 1935   $4,000,000
1932      3,100,000 1936      3,600,000
1933      3,500,000 1937      4,500,000
1934     4,000,000 1938   *
* Comparable figure is not available.
2 AA 34
THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
There has been a steady advance in total values since 1931. As indicated
previously and above, there is no doubt but that growers could make substantial repayments now, the general wealth of the districts having increased rapidly, especially since
1941. It is equally certain that they could make repayments only with great difficulty
before 1941. At time of writing (December, 1946) a strong effort is being made to
check rising prices due to inflation on the general belief that if they go too high, they
will fall to a disturbing low.    As shotun elsewhere, costs are also rising rapidly.
I have no alternative but to accept the belief that since prices are rising and an
attempt is being made to hold them in check, some inflation is taking place. As a
corollary to this statement I have no alternative but to accept the belief that prices will
eventually fall. I also concur in the belief that eventually an even stronger attempt
will be made to stabilize the general prices at a reasonable level. What this level is,
nobody knows; but, in my opinion, it would be unwise to assume that the present high
level of prices can continue and that in the future there will not be long-time trends
up and down, as in the past.
ORCHARD HISTORY.
The following may be taken as representative of production, cost and price
received per box in connection with a well-managed high-producing orchard:—
Table 8.—A Representative Farm.
(1)
Year.
(2)
Production
in Boxes.
(3)
Cost
per Box.
(4)
Price received
per Box.
1936	
12,429
15,143
17,519
13,475
11,722
3,239
21,058
9,187
17,171
12,574
Cents.
30.46*
43.10
39.50
44.38
50.40
124.40
47.70
78.10
64.20
67.50
Cents.
54.1
1937	
50.0
1938             	
44.1
1939	
51.9
1940	
53.0
1941	
98.7
1942	
95.9
1943	
159 6
1944	
125.3
1945	
149.3
* Costs  do not include interest on investment or wages  to  tbe owner-manager.
interest might be determined by taking the difference between columns 3 and 4.
The  return for wages and
In the year of lowest production per acre (1941) the cost of production was
highest; that is, 124.4 cents. The year immediately following was a high-production
year (for this orchard), and though total costs were rising, the cost of production per
box dropped to 47.7 cents. A careful study of the figures will show clearly the influence
that production per acre has on cost.    High production per acre is essential.
This is an important factor in all of the irrigation (and dyking and drainage)
districts.
Please note also that while it cost 30.46 cents a box to produce 12,429 boxes in
1936, it cost 67.5 cents a box to produce an almost equal number, 12,576 boxes, in 1945.
The rapid up-trend began with 98.7 cents per box in 1941.
I believe the figures for this farm to be typical for the purpose for which they
are used.
The general price-level per box is illustrated further by the figures received for
fruit by a grower in a different district. For the year 1926 and succeeding years up
to and including 1940 he received as follows: 48.4, 94, 64.1, 94.7, 52.8, 43.4, 22.3, 42,
35.6, 33, 52.2, 42, 48.3, 49.3, 54.5 (1940) cents per box. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION.
AA 35
For the years 1941 to 1945 he received 88, 94.5, 152.5, 126, 147 cents per box.
This advance in price, beginning in 1941, is typical.
Table 9.—Statistics on 25 Acres of One of the Best Orchards in a Central District.
Year.
Packed
Boxes.
Average
Price
per Box.
Cash
received.
One-half
Share of
Vegetable-
crop.
Total
Receipts.
Expenses.
Net Returns.
1939             	
6,339
4,853
2,076
5,479
2,356
12,279
7,013
Cents.
49.3
54.5
88.0
94.5
152.5
126.0
147.0
$
3,134.52
2,647.07
1,816.73
5,170.59
3,693.80
15,412.43
10,310.08
$
184.43
162.13
415.55
493.92
450.29
1,753.84
1,741.50
$
3,318.95
2,809.20
2,232.28
5,664.51
4,144.09
17,166.27
12,051.58
$
2,776.97
2,439.98
2,312.60
3,089.90
3,745.09
5,925.25
7,601.65
$
541.98
1940	
369.22
1941	
— 80.32
1942	
2,574.61
1943               	
398.22
1944	
11,241.04
1945              	
4,449.93
The last two years have been the best.    The 1944 large crop and good price was worth more to the grower
before deducting income tax than all of the other six years combined. AA 36
THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
o
o
o
•-J
o
JS
»
3
rS_
ai
-+-.
>.
o
OS
12;
S
a
0)
,4
"S
+J
!>
bo
-s_
o
o
o
m
T3
U
<T>
cS
X!
o
O
fc^
«H .<_>
° a
-U    K
C   -M
2 <u
-2 o
- b
ho  0
M     CO
S  *
5   <0
o ,__(
«H   -^
o>  <u
*  K*
EH .2
a.
_c
I-H
X b
0)
o
w3
0
p, o
O ra  ra    ■
■5 Q"5
„7ts
QJ
r~i cu dj cu.2 £
™ S tD^  sJ (D
H uk c    O
C^r-.
is
J5S
5 oj
Bs_
O a
H M _ QJ
l-S-Sg
t-    co    to    o
CM    CM    O    CM    ©
CD   H    [-   OO    r-lOCMlOOQCO^J'rH.—I
WKiu.o-iiiot'fcoTfHe.^i1
©rHrHrHOOOrHCMcOOJ-OlO
HWMO*.   NO._-OI>lDt-_-KlQt-"*NCSO:b
MWMCOOO-OO'fl'.t-Ol^ffiOHfflO.^O.t-l
■^OtDfflBMfroo.C.W.WMHNC.OtO'*
MNTtOOOOMCOHO-W^IOt-CICOUO
Tf   O   O  N
HtO'fl'OWWt-Ci.f.OOCSINOtlO.OO-tOHlOt-O:
C.MO.HaiHCOl-.O^t-WO.Mt-OG.WNffiON
eO-^i-lt- OHlOOMOOQOMNN_-C.O.t-N_-
&^ r-T rH T-i rH    t>f  OS   l>   U3
ONHCONO.O-SOOiaMWHCCO.OilOO.Hi'
t-©COrHOJrHC5-'3<'£>00©C-lOCO'*COOO.-HOQ-_-
OOtO(DOOHHN(«'00-0(010--a)nMI>0.10
IO  M ffl  M W  CO  IO CO SO t- iO* U3 IO 'fl t- 00* 03 O  CO O
o
r-t
h-
rH
on
O
on
OS
-^
r-
o
r-
en
CM
04
rH
[->
CO
CM
oo
00
CO
CO
IO
c;
o
IO
CO
OS
H
OS
CO
1-1
H
to
*<*
■<*
fc-
o
CO
o
CP
en
as
an
OS
CO
CM
o
nn
in
o
on
r-
^
i-
<r>
to
o
CN
OS
CO
CO
oo
IO
■^
L—
■«*
00
co
00
IO
©
as
CD
IO
to
OS
O
-rj*
to
o
CM
CM
04
CO
Ol
CM
H
04
CM
CM
Ol
CO
io
CO
CO
o
rH
©
*o
to
CO
(fl
Ol
■«*
to
C3
ce
t-
CM
CM
o
CO
00
OS
r-l
O
00
CM
©
CO
O
CM
00
to
CM
CO
OS
■<*
IO
IO
o
>s(.
on
~
o
on
■**
O
^>
on
-*
»o
CM
|—
cp
rH
CM
04
00
io
CXI
04
OS
OS
r^
CO
CJ
OS
OS
*#
o
CM
CO
O
«3
04
i-
'^,
c-
OS
lO
CO
t-
MNNMOJHrlHNNNNC.MO.tOffl'JlON
oo-*c.t-o.-OiOHt-Ni(:mt-aiooo)!Di(_eqc>:NH(
OOCOlO-^fCOeOOOrH-^t-CiOOCOt-COOOOOtOOOOt-CO
CO   IO   ©   CO   IO   CO   CM MfOSTf-OtOQ-l'-OMO
CM   r-t   CM   CO
IO
o
■«#
CM
CO
rH
to
©
OS
CO
H
t-
■^
IO
©
Tf
OS
OS
CM
t-
OS
CO
©
CO
o
©
rH
r—
CO
(O
OS
rH
04
co
rH
pH
n»
to
CM
r-
CD
to
CM
CO
^i1
t-
CO
CM
__-
'v_^
IO
iH
to
03
b-
CO
os
os
rH
00
00
CO
CM
CO
CO
co
CM
CM
CM
■^f
i-
I-
^WtOt-CCOlOHMn^lOtCf-OOiOHNM^l-.
C.t.C.e.Nf.COCOCOmci3MMM03MitM,^^'t')1
aiOlO-C10l0010.0.fl.o.O)O.O.QCl-ffi510lo.C)0 DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 37
From 1926 to 1939 the farm referred to in Table 10 consisted of 65 acres, 24 of
which were under irrigation. Fifty additional acres were purchased in 1940, 26 of
which were under irrigation. Thirty-five additional acres non-irrigated were purchased
in 1941. Total now, 150 acres, 50 of which are under irrigation, 35 bearing orchard,
and 6 non-bearing orchard.
It is clear from this table and from the statements given in evidence, but not here
quoted, that even the best orchardists could have paid little, if any, more up to 1941.
It is quite clear also that those with good production could have paid something more
during the years 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1945.
Statement by G. A. Barrat.
Mr. George A. Barrat, chairman of the B.C. Tree Fruit Board, has this to say with
regard to variation in prices and yields:—
" Of the past thirty years, only nine can be considered as showing any reasonable
return for his efforts to the Okanagan apple grower; these years were 1918, 1919, 1920,
1927, 1929, 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1945. In these years, growers with better than
average yields made good profits on their operations. Averaged over the whole thirty-
year period, the net returns to even the most efficient grower will show a very small
revenue and, in the cases of a great many growers, substantial losses.*
" It will be observed that, with the exception of 1927 and 1929, all of these profitable
seasons were years of war or immediately following war. In 1927 and 1929, unwholesome boom conditions prevailed which were quickly followed by a long period of
depression and low prices.
" For the pafet four years good prices have been received and it appears likely that
the 1946 season will also bring fair returns. This has led many to believe that the
fruit industry has entered upon a long period of permanently higher prices and net
profits; there is nothing in past history or in the present situation to justify such a
theory. In 1920 the opinion was widely held that prices were on a permanently higher
basis but 1921 brought losses to most apple growers, and 1922 was the most disastrous
season ever experienced.
" This year there are already signs that the peak of the market may have been
passed and that a decline is to be expected.
" The recent years of higher prices for fruits have enabled growers to improve
their financial position to a certain extent, but the heavy rate of taxation has made it
impossible for them to accumulate large reserves." t
* This statement is borne out by a study of the foregoing financial history of a typical orchard.    I believe the
statement to be generally true.
f I believe this statement to be generally correct in both principle and detail. AA 38
THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
Table 11.—Relation of Number of Bearing Apple-trees per Farm to the Average Cost
of Production of Apples and Operator's Labour Income in the Okanagan Valley
in 1939*
Numbei
of
Records.
Average Cost of producing Apples.
Operator's
Number of Bearing
Apple-trees.
Per Box.
Per Tree.
Labour
Earnings
(118
Cash.
Non-cash.
Total.
Cash.
Non-cash.
Total.
Records).
Under 400	
33
30
20
13
24
Cents.
27.4
30.6
29.4
27.1
29.0
Cents.
32.1
23.2
20.1
21.3
10.9
Cents.
59.5
53.8
49.5
48.4
39.9
$
2.24
2.45
2.08
1.65
2.03
S
2.61
1.86
1.43
1.28
.77
$
4.85
4.31
3.51
2.93
2.80
$
470
400-599	
900
600-799	
802
800-999	
976
657
120
28.9
17.8
46.7
2.07
1.28
3.35
726
Northern Okanagan.
Under 400	
10
11
9
8
18
28.2
26.5
25.5
24.7
29.0
37.9
28.2
18.5
20.6
9.7
66.1
54.7
44.0
45.3
38.7
1.57
1.86
2.03
1.55
2.15
2.10
1.99
1.47
1.29
.72
3.67
3.85
3.50
2.84
2.87
400-599	
330
600-799	
675
800-999	
734
624
56
27.9
14.7
42.6
2.00
1.07
3.07
427
Southern Okanagan.
Under 400	
23
19
11
5
6
27.2
32.3
33.3
31.2
28.9
30.4
21.1
21.8
22.3
17.0
57.6
53.4
55.1
53.5
45.9
2.57
2.77
2.12
1.80
1.63
2.86
1.81
1.39
1.28
.96
5.43
•     4.58
3.51
3.08
2.59
674
400-599	
1,232
600-799	
916
800-999	
1,363
753
64
30.5
22.5
53.0
2.17
1.60
3.77
943
* This table is taken from " Cost and Returns in the Production of Apples in the Okanagan Valley, British
Columbia," by B. -A. Campbell and S. C. Hudson, Dominion Department of Agriculture, October,  1945.
Please note that the average labour earnings for 1939 were $726.    This was more or less typical of the years
previous to 1939. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION.
AA 39
The figures on costs of production, as prepared by the North Okanagan District
Council, are given below.
Table 12.—Average Cost of Apples per Box.
Government
Survey Costs,
1939.
Growers'
Comparative Costs,
1942.
N.O.D.C.
Costs, 1945.
Growing.
Cents.
15.7
2.5
1.1
3.1
5.0
0.5
1.4
5.2
1.1
Cents.
26.0
2.5
1.5
3.5
5.0
0.5
1.4
5.2
1.1
Cents.
35.6
46.7
Harvesting.
8.7
2.4
10.0
2.5
16.0
3 5
11.1
12.5
19 5
46.7
34.45
59.2
41.25
90.8
56.0
81.15
100.45
146.8
The production cost has advanced from 81.15 cents in 1939 to 146.8 cents per box
in 1945.
A General Farm.
The following table bears out the statements given in evidence that it is only with
great difficulty that dairy and stock farming can be carried on under irrigation. The
water tax is almost, if not entirely, prohibitive.
Table 13.—Dairy and Stock Farm, Vernon District (from 86 Acres
assessed as Grade A).
Year.
Gross Income.
Expenses.
Total Tax.
Water
Levies.
Labour
Income.
1943	
$3,567.79
3,297.40
4,827.23
$3,194.95
4,147.79
5,055.31
$741.39
798.18
780.85
$509.88
577.07
521.70
+$372.84
1944	
— 850.39
1945	
—228.08 AA 40 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
GROSS INCOME DISTRIBUTION.
Tables 14 to 23, inclusive, on the immediately
succeeding pages include some of the data studied and
are not essential to an understanding of this report.
They are included, however, because they may be of
interest to residents of the various communities who
are concerned with public affairs.
Similar data are not available for Okanagan Falls,
Wynndel, and Heffley Creek, but it can be assumed
that the general income patterns are similar. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION.
AA 41
CAWSTON-KEREMEOS.
Total number of growers reported, 192.
Total amount paid to them (1945 calendar year), $371,614.54.
Average gross amount paid to each grower, $1,935.49 (±$50).
Table 14.
Group.
Number of
Growers.
Total Income
of Group.
Percentage
of Total
Gross Income.
19
38
96
38
19
$161,450.44
219,096.53
324,011.00
5,317.62
1,250.47
43.44
58.96
87.19
1.43
0.34
Total Gross Receipts.
Number of
Growers.
Percentage
of Total
Growers.
Total Receipt
of Group.
Percentage
of Total
Gross Receipt.
$0-   $500	
500- 1,000	
1,000- 2,000....
2,000- 3,000....
3,000- 5,000....
5,000- 7,500....
7,500-10,000....
10,000-15,000....
15,000 and over.
Totals.
53
34
48
30
13
8
2
2
2
27..60
17.71
25.00
15.62
6.77
4.17
1.04
1.04
1.04
$11,295.10
26,576.77
70,434.66
71,143.42
47,256.88
50,991.71
17,314.17
22,301.95
54,299.88
3.04
7.15
18.95
19.14
12.71
13.72
4.66
6.00
14.61
192
99.99
$371,614.54
99.98 AA 42
THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
CRESTON.
Total number of growers reported, 351.
Total amount paid to them (1945 calendar year), $614,501.95.
Average gross amount paid to each grower, $1,750.72.
Table 15.
Group.
Number of
Growers.
Total Income
of Group.
Percentage
of Total
Gross Income.
Highest 10 per cent.
Highest 20 per cent.
Highest 50 per cent.
Lowest 20 per cent..
Lowest 10 per cent-
70
176
70
35
$283,080.83
406,020.42
566,513.15
5,758.93
1,374.31
46.07
66.07
92.19
0.94
0.22
The above includes gross payments to growers in both irrigated and non-irrigated
districts. It was impossible to separate the two areas because of the manner in which
the information was obtained.
Total Gross Receipts.
Number of
Growers.
Percentage
of Total
Growers.
Total Receipt
of Group.
Percentage
of Total
Gross Receipt.
$0-   $500	
143
61
49
36
31
18
7
5
1
40.74
17.38
13.96
10.26
8.83
5.13
1.99
1.42
0.28
$28,204.80
45,072.45
68,452.03
90,108.72
118,787.67
109,244.94
62,099.69
60,590.80
31,940.85
4.59
500- 1,000	
7.33
1,000- 2,000	
11.14
2,000- 3,000	
14.66
3,000- 5,000	
19.33
5,000- 7,500	
17.78
7,500-10,000	
10.11
10,000-15,000	
9.86
15,000 and over	
5 20
Totals	
351
99.99
$614,501.95
100.00 DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION.
AA 43
KELOWNA.
Total number of growers reported, 680.
Total amount paid to them (1945 calendar year), $3,128,454.51.
Average gross amount paid to each grower, $4,600.67 (±$100).
Table 16.
Group.
Number of
Growers.
Total Income
of Group.
Percentage
of Total
Gross Income.
68
136
340
136
68
$1,382,101.32
1,991,848.70
2,801,408.47
39,725.70
12,526.27
44.18
63.68
89.55
1.27
0.40
The above table must be studied generally. It includes not only the growers
enumerated in the terms of reference but many other growers in the Kelowna area.
The information was not supplied by irrigation districts, but the table is of some
value in showing the distribution of income in the whole area. It does include Black
Mountain, Glenmore, Scotty Creek, and South-east Kelowna Irrigation Districts.
Total Gross Receipts.
Number of
Growers.
Percentage
ot Total
Growers.
Total Receipt
of Group.
Percentage
of Total
Gross Receipt.
$0-   $500	
124
67
114
85
108
73
35
33
41
18.23
9.86
16.76
12.50
15.88
10.74
,     5.15
4.85
6.03
$33,309.16
49,284.98
•      167,286.38
212,446.05
413,762.05
446,472.57
302,483.75
418,753.23
1,084,656.34
1.06
500- 1,000	
1.58
1,000- 2,000	
5.35
2,000- 3,000	
6.79
3,000- 5,000	
13.23
5,000- 7,500	
14.27
7,500-10,000     	
9.67
10,000-15,000	
13.38
34.67
Totals	
680
100.00
$3,128,454.51
100.00 AA 44
THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
NARAMATA.
Total number of growers reported, 114.
Total amount paid to them (1945 calendar year), $44,488.80.
Average gross amount paid to each grower, $3,899.02.
Table 17.
Group.
Number of
Growers.
Total Income
of Group.
Percentage
of Total
Gross Income.
11
23
57
23
11
$129,312.76
208,207.92
367,275.85
2,250.41
88.09
29.09
46.84
82.63
0.51
0.02
Total Gross Receipts.
Number of
Growers.
Percentage
of Total
Growers.
Total Receipt
of Group.
Percentage
of Total
Gross Receipt.
$0-   $500	
500- 1,000                            	
23
1
12
18
26
22
8
1
3
20.17
0.88
10.52
15.79
22.80
19.29
7.02
0.88
2.63
$2,250.41
510.25
18,889.91
46,185.96
106,558.69
133,265.81
71,134.67
10,191.24
55,501.86
0.51
0.11
1,000- 2,000	
4.25
2,000- 3,000	
10.39
3,000- 5,000                   	
23.97
5,000- 7,500	
29.98
7,500-10,000	
16.00
10,000-15,000	
2.29
15,000 and over	
12.49
Totals	
114
99.98
$444,488.80
99.99 DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION.
AA 45
OYAMA.
Total number of growers reported, 24.
Total amount paid to them (1945 calendar year), $104,308.82.
Average gross amount paid to each grower, $4,346.20.
Table 18.
Group.
Number of
Growers.
Total Income
of Group.
Percentage
of Total
Gross Income.
Highest 10 per cent.
Highest 20 per cent.
Highest 50 per cent.
Lowest 20 per cent-
Lowest 10 per cent..
2
5
12
5
2
$36,169.81
55,461.02
85,985.02
3,179.40
967.61
34.68
53.17
82.43
3.05
0.93
Total Gross Receipts.
Number of
Growers.
Percentage
of Total
Growers.
Total Receipt
of Group.
Percentage
of Total
Gross Receipt.
$0-   $500....
500- 1,000....
1,000- 2,000....
2,000- 3,000	
3,000- 5,000....
5,000- 7,500....
7,500-10,000....
10,000-15,000....
15,000 and over.
Totals.
4.17
16.67
16.67
4.17
25.00
25.00
4.17
4.17
$405.89
2,773.51
5,951.48
2,542.45
21,893.84
34,571.84
10,928.45
25,241.36
0.39
2.66
5.71
2.44
20.99
33.14
10.48
24.20
24
100.02
$104,308.82 AA 46
THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
PEACHLAND.
Total number of growers reported, 77.
Total amount paid to them (1945 calendar year), $179,104.35.
Average gross amount paid to each grower, $2,326.03.
Table 19.
Group.
Number of
Growers.
Total Income
of Group.
Percentage
of Total
Gross Income.
Highest 10 per cent.
Highest 20 per cent.
Highest 50 per cent.
Lowest 20 per cent-
Lowest 10 per cent-
15
39
15
$66,486.79
94,163.95
155,297.30
3,113.70
1,220.20
37.12
52.57
86.71
1.74
0.68
Total Gross Receipts.
Number of
Growers.
Percentage
of Total
Growers.
Total Receipt
of Group.
Percentage
of Total
Gross Receipt.
$0-   $500....
500- 1,000.-.
1,000- 2,000	
2,000- 3,000....
3,000- 5,000....
5,000- 7,500	
7,500-10,000....
10,000-15,000	
15,000 and over.
Totals.
19
10
14
15
10
6
2
24.68
12.99
18.18
19.48
12.99
7.76
2.60
$4,726.83
7,181.39
20,745.42
39,585.89
35,255.39
34,933.20
18,515.13
18,161.10
2.64
4.01
11.58
22.10
19.68
19.50
10.34
10.14
77
100.01
$179,104.35 DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION.
AA 47
ROBSON.
Total number of growers reported, 69.
Total amount paid to them (1945 calendar year), $18,117.37.
Average gross amount paid to each grower, $262.57.
Table 20.
Group.
Number of
Growers.
Total Income
of Group.
Percentage
of Total
Gross Income.
Highest 10 per cent.
Highest 20 per cent.
Highest 50 per cent.
Lowest 20 per cent-
Lowest 10 per cent-
7
14
35
14
7
$9,735.35
12,944.53
16,839.27
215.15
66.12
53.73
71.45
92.95
1.19
0.36
Total Gross Receipts.
Number of
Growers.
Percentage
of Total
Growers.
Total Receipt
of Group.
Percentage
of Total
Gross Receipt.
$0-   $500	
60
4
4
1
86.96
5.80
5.80
1.45
$7,160.75
2,802.33
5,677.86
2,476.43
39.52
500- 1,000	
15.47
1,000- 2,000	
31.34
2,000- 3,000	
13.67
3,000- 5,000	
5,000- 7,500	
7,500-10,000	
10,000-15,000	
15,000 and over	
Totals	
69
100.01
$18,117.37
100 00 AA 48                                          THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
VERNON.
Total number of growers reported, 520.
Total amount paid to them (1945 calendar year), $1,871,238.62.
Average gross amount paid to each grower, $3,598.54 ($3,973 ± $50).
Table 21.
Group.
Number of
Growers.
Total Income
of Group.
Percentage
of Total
Gross Income.
52
104
260
104
52
$714,349.36
971,101.78
1,748,266.93
13,357.32
3,970.00
38.17
51.90
93.43
0.714
0.212
These figures include growers from outside the irrigation district and are consequently indications only.    The average gross amount paid to each grower is low by
about $375 because returns for certain vegetable sales are not included.    The average
gross amount paid to each grower is $3,973 (±$50).
Total Gross Receipts.
Number of
Growers.
Percentage
of Total
Growers.
Total Receipt
of Group.
Percentage
of Total
Gross Receipt.
$0-   $500	
154
75
73
45
67
53
14
20
19
29.61
14.42
14.04
8.65
12.88
10.19
2.69
3.85
3.65
$32,397.89
53,286.20
105,030.40
111,615.14
268,159.37
322,089.00
119,197.42
235,269.62
624,193.58
1.73
2.85
5.61
5.96
14.33
17.21
6.37
12.57
33.36
500- 1,000	
1,000- 2,000	
2,000- 3,000	
3,000- 5,000	
5,000- 7,500  _
7,500-10,000	
10,000-15,000	
Totals	
520
99.98
$1,871,238.62
99.99 DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION.
AA 49
WESTBANK.
Total number of growers reported, 90.
Total amount paid to them (1945 calendar year), $298,948.92.
Average gross amount paid to each grower, $3,321.65.
Table 22.
Group.
Number of
Growers.
Total Income
of Group.
Percentage
of Total
Gross Income.
Highest 10 per cent.
Highest 20 per cent.
Highest 50 per cent
Lowest 20 per cent-
Lowest 10 per cent-
9
18
45
18
9
$116,278.49
164,128.33
254,589.98
6,432.38
1,070.67
38.90
54.90
85.16
2.15
0.36
Total Gross Receipts.
Number of
Growers.
Percentage
of Total
Growers.
Total Receipt
of Group.
Percentage
of Total
Gross Receipt.
$0-   $500	
500- 1,000	
1,000- 2,000	
2,000- 3,000	
3,000- 5,000	
5,000- 7,500	
7,500-10,000	
10,000-15,000	
15,000 and over.
Totals.
10
12
25
8
19
9
4
2
1
11.11
13.33
27.78
8.89
21.11
10.00
4.44
2.22
1.11
$1,383.02
8,817.55
37,991.37
19,115.22
77.288.27
52,620.80
35,058.62
26,134.95
40,539.12
0.46
2.95
12.71
6.39
25.85
17.60
11.73
8.74
13.56
i.99
$298,948.92
99.99 AA 50
THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
WINFIELD AND OKANAGAN CENTRE.
Total number of growers reported, 114.
Total amount paid to them (1945 calendar year), $495,420.94.
Average gross amount paid to each grower, $4,345.80.
Table 23.
Group.
Number of
Growers.
Total Income
of Group.
Percentage
of Total
Gross Income.
11
23
57
23
11
$200,220.90
285,773.59
424,093.24
12,100.29
3,669.64
40.41
57.68
85.60
2.44
0.74
Total Gross Receipts.
Number of
Growers.
Percentage
of Total
Growers.
Total Receipt
of Group.
Percentage
of Total
Gross Receipt.
$0- $500—
500- 1,000—
1,000- 2,000—
2,000- 3,000—
3,000- 5,000—
5,000- 7,500—
7,500-10,000....
10,000-15,000	
15,000 and over.
Totals.
9
18
17
13
32
9
5
7.89
15.80
14.91
11.40
28.07
7.89
4.39
7.02
2.63
100.00
$2,617.71
13,197.16
25,136.18
30,376.65
127,959.39
55,746.61
40,166.34
96,344.53
103,876.37
$495,420.94
0.53
2.66
5.07
6.13
25.83
11.25
8.11
19.45
20.97
100.00 DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 51
INDIVIDUAL DISTRICT SUMMARIES.
BLACK MOUNTAIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT.
(Public Hearings held July 29th, 1946, in Rutland Community Hall, Rutland.)
Summary of Data.
History and Description of the System.—The Black Mountain Irrigation District
was incorporated under the " Water Act " in November, 1"920.
This gravity system is the result of the purchase and amalgamation of three private
systems—the Black Mountain Water Company (subsidiary of Belgo-Canadian Fruit
Land Co.), the Kelowna Irrigation Company, and the Rutland Estates. In addition,
the Rutland drainage works were taken over in 1925.
Immediate repairs and extensions were necessary after purchase to provide additional storage-dams and main canals.
The District brief shows the following figures with regard to the total cost of the
system over the period 1921 to 1945:—
Total cost  $834,302.81
Borrowed from the Government     522,210.43
Repaid by the District     246,443.25
Capital provided by the District     312,191.88
Total invested by the District     558,635.13
Present Condition.—Replacement of the old main line with the new low-level ditch
is just being completed. Renewals and replacements required during the period 1947
to 1949 are estimated at $49,833.05, to which about 25 per cent, or more might have to
be added to allow for increased cost of materials and labour.
The District anticipates the necessity of putting the Rutland Flats distribution
system in pipe, at an estimated cost of $150,000, and states that a start should be made
on this within the next few years.
The District Health Officer has asked the Black Mountain Irrigation District to
extend the domestic water system to the business part of Rutland. A request has also
been made that the ditch in front of the property adjoining the District office be covered.
A minimum of $17,000 to $20,000 annually for the next ten years will be required
for improvements to the system.
Description of Area.—The area is somewhat sprawling, covers some high and some
low lands, and, generally speaking, is less easy to irrigate and to drain than are most
districts.    The soil varies considerably, but is generally good.
Water-supply.—The Mission Creek system is the main source of supply. Storage
water is held in two dams—the Belgo and the Greystoke—with a total capacity of about
7,750 acre-feet.
Approximately 2% acre-feet of water per acre are delivered to each grower during
the season.
Irrigable Acreage.—In 1920 the irrigable acreage was calculated at 5,200 acres.
In 1938 the figure of 6,900 was set by the Government as the irrigable acreage, as this
was the acreage the Belgo company was originally intended to supply with water.
Revenue-producing Acreage.—The revenue-producing acreage is shown as follows:
1938, 3,700 acres;  1941, 3,900 acres;  1946, 3,881.28 acres.
Number of Growers.—There are about 342 land-owners in the District, of whom
approximately 279 are owners of land under irrigation.
Tax Sales.—In the early '30's 65 per cent, of the water-users were threatened with
tax sale, but actual sales were relatively few. AA 52
THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
Conservation Fund Standing.—The following statement gives the Conservation
Fund standing of this District with regard to both principal and interest as at March
15th, 1945:-
Total Principal
and Interest.
Borrowed and accrued since 1920  $1,151,817.44
Paid  251,908.22
Written off  518,144.62
Owing as at March 15th, 1945  381,764.60
Owing as at March 15th, 1946  382,509.52*
Per Irrigated Acre
(approximately).
$296.00
65.00
133.00
98.00
* Black Mountain has withheld its token payment this year pending the report of the Commission.
1938 Arrangement.—Under Order in Council No. 751 of 1933 the outstanding
indebtedness of this District was reduced from $560,328.98 to $300,000, and the annual
payment was set at $18,600.
By the 1938 arrangement the District was requested to pay an annual sum of
approximately $6,905 in lieu of the $18,600 and to set aside a Renewal Reserve of $6,600.
On December 7th, 1940, a letter from the Comptroller of Water Rights advised the
District that approval had been given by the Honourable the Minister of Lands to a
further adjustment in payments; namely, raising the Renewal Reserve to $17,280 for
a period of five years, commencing March 15th, 1941. The purpose of this adjustment,
which had the effect of reducing the payment to the Conservation Fund, was to allow
for replacement of the old main ditch with a new low-level ditch.
With regard to the 1938 arrangement the District brief states as follows: " This
arrangement as it operated during the last five-year period, if continued for a further
ten-year period would, we believe, enable us to put the District system in good shape."
The reference here is to the special adjustment of 1940, which permitted a Renewal
Reserve of $17,280.     ■
The following tabulation shows the adjustment in annual payment and the present
requirement:—
Base Rate
per Acre.
Payments to Conservation Fund.
Year of Adjustment and Present Year.
Required by
O.C. 751, 974
(1933, 1936).
Accepted by
the 1938
Arrangement.
Renewal
Reserve.
1939     	
$3.65
5.20
3.65
$18,600.00
18,600.00
18,600.00
$6,758.42                  $6,600.00
1941                           	
2,978.21                  17,280.00
1946          	
*                            6.600.00
* Not yet paid.
The standing of the Renewal Reserve Account is given below:—
Total payments as at March 15th, 1946  $106,200.00
Interest accruals  67.67
Total expended on renewals as at March 15th, 1946     158,743.99
Balance which should be in Renewal Reserve as at March
15th, 1946   Nil
Irrigation Charges and Domestic Water Rates.—The following is a summary of
irrigation charges and domestic water rates levied by the Black Mountain Irrigation
District:—
Combined tax and toll per acre, 1945  $15.90
Special assessment for new main ditch, 1945       2.00
Funded and amortized arrears, 1945  2.50-3.25
Total charges per acre, 1945  20.40-21.15
Domestic rates, per householder (per annum net)     28.80 DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 53
Only a very small portion of the District in the " Belgo " area is supplied with
domestic water, there being forty-five domestic water-users.
Production.—Production consists of fruit-growing (mainly apples), the raising of
grapes, vegetable-growing, and mixed farming. The acreage is divided somewhat as
follows:— Acres.
Good orchard  1,423.61
Poor orchard, vegetables  970.26
Hay, grain, pasture, etc  1,450.90
Unwatered   36.51
Relative Productivity.—The productivity of this district varies much, depending
on the particular acreage; in some places it is high, in others low. For purposes of
comparison, it has been placed at 80 for the district as a whole.
Some growers are doing very well;  others are not meeting expenses.
Relative Incomes.— (The growers of this district are included in the Kelowna
table.)    (See table No. 16.)
Special Factors to be considered.    ■
1. The New Low-level Ditch.—The District, according to its brief, paid the Belgo
company about $75,000 in 1920 for the main ditch, which has now been abandoned.
This ditch was unable to carry sufficient water for the acreage, and although the
reservoir was raised, at a cost of $68,000, it was never filled to capacity. In addition,
about $65,562 was spent in repairs on this ditch.
The question of the construction of a new low-level ditch to replace 11 miles of the
main ditch, including the 8-mile siphon, was considered in 1925, but beyond surveys and
estimates no action was taken until 1940, and in the meantime considerable money had
been spent on repairs and replacements to the main ditch. It would appear that the
delay in taking action with regard to the low-level ditch added materially to the cost of
the Black Mountain system.
2. Seepage.—Seepage is a serious and difficult problem in this District, and in my
opinion it will have to be dealt with in the near future. An adequate drainage system
seems necessary to supplement the irrigation system, and I am convinced that the
District will not reach its maximum production until the two problems, irrigation and
drainage, are considered as one problem.
3. Sales of Land.—In this District, land has been changing hands rapidly of recent
years. The following note appended to the financial statement of the District for the
fiscal period ended February 28th, 1946, gives a graphic picture of the situation:—
" 120 parcels have been created by subdivision in the past six months.
" 56 per cent, of the orchard land in the District has changed hands in the
past three years.
" 100 per cent, of the commercial vineyards have changed hands in the past
two years."
4. Applications for Water.—In the brief submitted by this District, it is stated that
applications for water for about 1,000 additional acres have been received by the
Trustees of the District. According to the evidence, the land is good, but the applications cannot be granted without further enlargement of existing laterals and improvements to the system. The water is available if the laterals are enlarged to permit of
proper distribution.
5. Power-development.—This District proposes that power-development and irrigation could profitably be linked together to give cheaper irrigation-water. AA 54 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
Comments and Recommendation.
This District feels that at its incorporation it was used in part to protect the
holders of debentures of the companies from which it took over the system.
In the past twenty years the charges levied on the land have averaged $8.21 per
acre, and the District feels that it cannot bear higher charges. To quote from the
brief: ". . . in the light of our past experience we are unwilling to consider any
proposition which would put a permanent charge of more than $8 per acre on the land."
The District suggests that as an alternate proposal " the Provincial Government
take possession and operate the storage-dams in the interests of all water-users, giving
this District credit on account of its indebtedness to the Conservation Fund, for its
storage-dams."
The brief also points out that the irrigation system assists in maintaining an even
lake-level, thus proving an advantage to the City of Kelowna. It claims that the whole
water-supply of the city and surrounding district is improved by the holding-back of
flood-waters released for irrigation purposes.
The District desires the enlargement and relocation of certain distribution laterals
which are too small to carry sufficient water for land now being irrigated. If the
laterals were enlarged, additional water could be supplied from Mission Creek through
the Black Mountain system to Scotty Creek. This is apparently the only way in which
a plentiful supply of water could be assured to Scotty Creek.
The District feels that certain necessary extensions should be considered in the
same light as replacements under the 1938 arrangement, and that the District should
be permitted to use Renewal Reserve funds for this purpose. It is pointed out that
$150,000 has been spent on the new ditch, but that it cannot be run to capacity without
enlarging the laterals below it. The siphon at Hollywood, at the head of the Rutland
ditch, has not been renewed for thirty years and may require replacement at any time.
In addition, there has been a washout at Hilda Creek, necessitating immediate repairs.
To finance the new ditch, in addition to the increased Renewal Reserve, it was
necessary to borrow $25,000 from the Royal Bank of Canada, and this loan will also have
to be repaid in the near future.
Administration, maintenance, and operation costs are very heavy. The budget for
1946-47 allows a total of $18,417.34 for these purposes, and this amount must be
obtained from the water-users in addition to the Renewal Reserve requirement and the
token payment to the Conservation Fund.
In connection with vegetable farming it was pointed out in the evidence that the
Black Mountain District must compete with the Coast and with Oliver, which has an
earlier crop. In growing vegetables, frequently a crop is raised but cannot be marketed
because of changed conditions at the time of harvest.
The sum paid into the Conservation Fund by the Black Mountain Irrigation District
in 1945 was, by special arrangement, $2,873.22, and in my opinion this amount is more
than the District can stand and at the same time make provision for required renewals.
The renewal reserves must be adequate, and the present tax must be maintained or a
still higher one levied.
I recommend that $1,500 be paid annually into the Conservation Fund, and that
this amount be accepted for the full annual payment required under Order in Council
No. 751, 1933, and Order in Council No. 974, 1936.
CAWSTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT.
(Public Hearings held August 2nd, 1946, at 12 noon, in Community Hall, Cawston.)
Summary of Data.
History and Description of System.—The Cawston Irrigation District was incorporated in April, 1926. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 55
This is a gravity system, taken over from the Similkameen Fruit Lands Company
after it had been in use for some time. It consists of wooden and concrete flumes and
siphons, and is about 8% miles in length.
Present Condition.—According to the District brief, more permanent works are
needed to guarantee the supply of water. If water is to be delivered to the Land
Settlement Board acreage, Flume No. 7 will have to be enlarged.
Immediate requirements for renewal of flumes and siphons for 1946 and 1947
(including $300 for a new office and storage building) amount to $6,826.30.
Description of Area.—For purposes of levying taxes and tolls, the land is classified
as follows:—
Grade A: Under irrigation;  planted to trees and ground crops.
Grade B:  Land that can be watered when the system is extended.    Tolls are
not collected on this land.
Grade C:  Gravel banks, etc.
Water-supply.—Water for this District can be drawn in large supply from the
Similkameen River.
Tax Sales.—The last tax sale was advertised in 1944, but the properties were
redeemed before the sale took place.
Conservation Fund Standing.—The following statement gives the Conservation
Fund standing of this District with regard to both principal and interest as at March
15th, 1945:  Total Principal      Per Irrigated Acre
and Interest. (approximately).
Borrowed and accrued since 1926  $9,036.14 $35.00
Paid     1,694.42 7.00
Written off  8.29 	
Owing as at March 15th, 1945     7,333.46 28.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1946     7,669.39 	
Not operating under 1938 Arrangement.—This District is not operating under the
1938 arrangement.
Under Order in Council No. 751 of 1933 the outstanding indebtedness of the
District was reduced from $3,160.68 to $3,152.39, with the annual instalment set at
$228.86. On February 9th, 1934, the District obtained a further loan of $1,300 from
the Conservation Fund. On April 20th, 1934, it paid the first instalment of $229 as
required by Order in Council No. 751, but no payments were made from that time
onward.
In a letter from the Department of Lands under date of September 2nd, 1941, the
District was given permission to use all taxes and tolls for renewal and maintenance
of the system. This permission was granted because of the limited acreage on which
taxes could be levied and the still smaller acreage from which tolls could be collected.
A proviso was made that the levies were not to be less than $10 per acre, and that those
moneys not required for the operation of the system were to be used for replacements.
In 1940 the levies were increased to $12 per acre, as the former levy was not sufficient
to provide for replacements. According to Departmental memoranda, it is the intention
that when the perishable structures have been replaced, the District will be required to
make a contribution towards reducing the outstanding indebtedness.
Under the present arrangement the debt is gradually increasing through accrued
interest.
There is no Renewal Reserve Account.
Irrigation Charges.—The following is a summary of the irrigation charges levied
by the District:— AA 56 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
Grade A:  $6.00 per acre for taxes.
Grade B : $3.00 per acre for taxes.
Grade C: $0.25 per acre for taxes.
Plus tolls at $6 for any land that received water from the District's systems.
There have been no special assessments in this District since 1938.
There are no domestic water charges levied by the District.
Irrigable, Revenue-producing, and Irrigated Acreage.—Irrigable acreage:   1938,
768.41 acres  (Grades A and B include Land Settlement Board) ;   1946, 589.82 acres
(Grade A, C.I.D. 384.01;   Grade B, C.I.D. 132.02;   Grade B, L.S.B. 73.79).
Revenue-producing acreage:   1938, 768.41 acres;   1946, 680.14 acres.
Irrigated acreage:  1938, 226.04 acres;  1946, 324.06 acres.
Production.—In this area apples predominate, but there are other tree-fruits and
some ground crops also.
Relative Productivity.—For purposes of comparison, the production index has been
placed at 55.
Relative Incomes.—With regard to relative incomes, this District has been combined with Keremeos because of the close association of the two districts in the packinghouses (see Table 14).
Special Factors to be considered.
1. Land Settlement Board Acreage.—Within this District the Land Settlement
Board has reserved 226.69 acres. Up to and including 1943 the Board voluntarily paid
amounts annually to help the District with renewals and maintenance, but not at the
established rates for assessment. Since 1943 no payments have been made. The lands
are held in reserve at the present time and are not available for settlement; it is anticipated, however, that they will shortly be put on the market for veterans to purchase.
It is the District's understanding that should these lands be taken up, the District
would be obliged to supply them with water. The estimated cost would be $2,000 plus
the cost of enlarging Flume No. 7.
2. Lands eliminated from the District.—The following acreage has been eliminated
from the territorial limits of the District since 1938:— Acres.
February 26th, 1943  113.40
May 23rd, 1944     23.20
June 25th, 1946     39.79
Total  176.39
3. Land Sales.—In recent years some of the old settlers have been selling out;
consequently, land has been changing hands to a considerable extent. Prices range
from $125 to $155 an acre.
4. District Requests.—In 1937 the District applied for a further loan from the
Conservation Fund to enable it to replace flumes which were taken over from the
Similkameen Fruit Lands Company at the time of incorporation. This request was
refused. A schedule of estimated cost of renewals, prepared in 1942, shows that the
average cost per annum at the then existing prices would be as follows: 1943-47,
$1,705; 1948-56, $1,454. Actual amounts spent on renewals and repairs, as shown in
Schedule B, page 3 of the Cawston brief, are as follows: 1938-45—total, $12,162.66;
average per annum, $1,520.33.
The Cawston brief states that the District considers the interest charge on the
Conservation Fund loan to be still too high. It asks that the interest rate be scaled
down or eliminated altogether, and suggests that repayment of the principal be
extended over a period of not less than twenty years. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 57
Comments and Recommendations.
The evidence indicates that in this District some of the best farmers had to work
out at intervals in order to be able to retain their land. Some dairying and seed-
growing was attempted also, before the orchards came into full bearing, in order to
provide a cash crop.
In my opinion this District is in no position to maintain its system, provide a
Renewal Reserve, and at the same time make substantial payments to the Conservation
Fund.    Replacements are bound to continue to be heavy and costs are advancing.
I recommend:—
(a.)  That the District continue its present high assessment for operation,
maintenance, and replacement.
(&.)  That $200 be paid annually on the indebtedness to the Conservation
Fund, and that this token payment of $200 be accepted as full payment
for the amount due that year on an indebtedness of $7,669.39  (as at
March 15th, 1946).
EAST CRESTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT.
(Public Hearings held on August 8th, 1946, at 11.30 a.m., in the
Knights of Pythias Hall, Creston.)
Summary of Data.
History and Description of the System.-—The East Creston Irrigation District was
incorporated under the " Water Act " in May, 1929.
Prior to that time there was no irrigation in the area. In 1929 the District
obtained a loan of $150,000 from the Conservation Fund to construct an intake and
distribution system, and irrigation was started in 1930.
This is a gravity system, entirely underground. The main conduit, of concrete,
is about 6 miles long. There are approximately 11 miles of steel laterals. Most of
the growers use sprinkler systems on their farms.
Present Condition.—The works would appear to be in fairly good condition, as
over the past sixteen years depreciation has been relatively limited. There are several
bad spots, however, in the main conduit and considerable indication of leakage.
The intake was reconstructed and the laterals extended in 1945, at a cost of
$5,855.95.
Description of Area.—This area consists mostly of clay and clay loam, relatively
level and easy to irrigate. The trees appear healthy, but many are known to be suffering from winter-injury.
Water-supply.—The water is taken from Arrow Creek, with an intake about 3%
miles from the uppermost orchard.    There are no storage-dams.
On the average, about 26 inches of water per acre (just over 2 acre-feet) are used
by the growers in a season.
Irrigable Acreage.—For purposes of the 1938 formula, the irrigable acreage of
this District was set at 1,440 acres.
Revenue-producing Acreage.—The revenue-producing acreage has increased, as is
indicated: 1938, 1,179 acres; 1941, 1,201.9 acres; 1946, 1,460.6 acres (divided as
follows: Grade A, 577.5 acres; Grade B, 119.8 acres; Grade C, 567.0 acres; Grade D,
197.3 acres).
Irrigated Acreage.—The irrigated acreage in 1946 is 1,264.3.
Number of Growers.—There are approximately 200 growers.
Tax Sales.—There have been no sales of property for non-payment of District taxes
in recent years. AA 58
THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
Conservation Fund Standing.—The following statement gives the Conservation
Fund standing of this District with regard to both principal and interest, as at March
15th, 1945:—• Total Principal Per Irrigated Acre
and Interest. (approximately).
Borrowed and accrued since 1929  $275,668.72 $220.00
Paid       85,550.33 68.00
Written off or not charged       22,244.73 18.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1945     167,873.66 134.00
Owing as at March 21st, 1946     165,564.77 	
1938 Arrangement.—This District is operating under the 1938 arrangement.
Order in Council No. 751, 1933, reduced the total indebtedness of the District from
$165,195.10 to $164,420.60.    The annual instalment was set at $8,225.
Under the 1938 arrangement the amount to be paid into Renewal Reserve was set
at $2,500 annually, and the payment to the Conservation Fund amounted to approximately $6,283 in lieu of $8,225. In 1942, due to a crop failure, when production
dropped to 60,000 boxes, the amount paid into the Conservation Fund was only
$1,954.15. Otherwise the East Creston District has met all payments as requested
under the 1938 arrangement.
In 1944, as the total accumulated in the Renewal Reserve Fund exceeded $20,000,
the annual requirement was reduced from $2,500 to $1,250. A Departmental memorandum indicates that if the system shows a more rapid rate of deterioration within the
next few years, the contribution to the Renewal Reserve should be increased.
The following tabulation shows the adjustments in annual payments and the
present requirements:—
Base Rate
per Acre.
Payments to Conservation Fund.
Year of Adjustment and Present "5. ear.
Required bv
O.C. 751, 974
(1933,1936).
Accepted by
the 1938
Arrangement.
Renewal
Reserve.
1
$7.45                     $8,225.00
6.58         |           8,225.00
6.58                  8,225.00
$6,283.00                   $2,500.00
1944    	
6,658.50                   1,250.00
1946      	
6,688.50                   1,250.00
The standing of the Renewal Reserve Account is given below:—
Total payments as at March 15th, 1946  $23,750.00
Interest accruals        3,090.01
Total expended from Renewal Reserve as at March 15th,
1946     	
Amount which should be in Renewal Reserve as at March
15th, 1946 _.       26,840.01
Irrigation Charges.—The following is a summary of irrigation charges levied by
the East Creston Irrigation District:—
Tax per acre, 1946—
Grade A, 577.5 acres at  $5.00
Grade B, 119.8 acres at     3.50
Grade C, 567.0 acres at    2.50
Grade D, 197.3 acres at     1.50
Average tax per irrigated acre, 1946     3.435
Tolls per acre, 1946     None
Total charges per acre, 1946 (average)     3.435
There have been no special assessments in this District since 1938.
Funded arrears of taxes were paid up by 1945. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 59
Domestic Rates.—There is a charge of $18 per year per dwelling for domestic
water within the District.
The Village of Creston pays the District $100 per month for transportation of
domestic water plus one-eighth of 1 per cent, of the maintenance and one-eighth of
% per cent, of salaries and office upkeep.
Production.—This is primarily a tree-fruit district. Apples, pears, plums, and
peaches grow on about 85 per cent, of the area. All of the small or bush fruits are
grown in relatively small quantities.
In the irrigated areas production is higher, the fruit is bigger, and there is a
lower percentage of rejects. Non-irrigated land over a period of years would not produce more than 50 per cent, of the amount produced by irrigated land, according to
the evidence submitted. This district has much more than doubled its production in
the past fourteen years, but this has been due only partly to the advent of irrigation
and partly to increased planting.
Production fluctuates greatly. There have been two or three disasters through
fall frosts, very wet springs which caused poor " set " and scab, etc. Production in
1942, for instance, was 60,000 boxes, as compared with 260,000 boxes in 1944.
The East Creston District cannot grow Winesaps, but it is not in a bad position
from the point of view of wanted varieties of apples. Figures quoted from the Orchard
Survey of the Kootenay Horticultural District for the years 1941 to 1945, for the Creston area, show an average of 191 packed boxes per acre, of which the number of packed
boxes of wanted varieties amounted to 161.4 per acre.
Relative Productivity.—According to the District brief, production per acre in the
Kootenay orchards is considerably below that of the Okanagan.
Figures from the Creston Co-operative Fruit Exchange for the years 1940, 1941,
and 1942 show an average production per acre for orchards in this area of 135 packed
boxes. Four apple-orchards, rated locally as in the high-production class, averaged,
in those years, 226 packed boxes per acre.
In the opinion of Mr. E. C. Hunt, District Horticulturist, Department of Agriculture, the productivity of Creston is somewhat higher than that of Wynndel or
Robson.
For purposes of comparison, I have placed the relative productivity of the East
Creston District at 55. This rating is due in part to the fact that many of the orchards
have not reached full bearing, and in my opinion, barring accident, the situation will
improve with the years.
Relative Incomes.— (See Creston table, No. 15.)
Special Factors to be considered.
1. Domestic Water for Village of Creston.—The village of Creston gets a quantity
of water for domestic use out of the East Creston irrigation system. As stated previously, the District charges the Village $100 per month plus one-eighth of 1 per cent,
of the maintenance costs and one-eighth of % per cent, of the salaries and office upkeep
for transporting this water.
According to the District secretary, there is a strong possibility that, owing to the
larger tracts of lands being subdivided into smaller acreages and additional demands
being made for domestic water, the District may have to curtail, if not cut off, the
delivery of water to the Village. If this becomes necessary, there will be a resultant
loss of revenue, and irrigation tax rates will have to be increased proportionately.
2. Method of Taxing.—In this District the land is taxed more or less according
to its productivity. Because of large arrears of taxes, the land was regraded from
"A"  (bearing orchard) and "B"  (other lands) to the following classifications:—
Grade A: Full-bearing orchard.
Grade B: Two-thirds full bearing. AA 60 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
Grade C: Bearing less than two-thirds.
Grade D: Arable land, but not cultivated.
Grade E : Waste land, non-irrigable.
Taxes on these grades were gradually reduced during the period from 1938 to
1945 to permit the growers to pay up funded arrears of taxes. In this connection the
brief states:—
" Since the scale of charges in effect during the last three years has enabled the
ratepayers to meet current charges and clean up arrears, it would seem that this scale
adequately fits the economy of the farmer at the existing levels of farm production and
prices. Since also there is a very definite relationship between production and prices
and capacity to pay, it will be relevant to this submission to develop the relationship
further. The descending scale of charges has generally been in keeping with the
' take home ' returns of the farmer throughout the fifteen years of the District operation, only in the last war years have farm returns shown a reversal of the descending
scale. That reversal, however, brought in its train numerous problems, so that in
effect increased returns have largely operated as an offset against increased costs and
in lieu of cost of living bonus.
" While in 1945 apple sales prices increased 119 per cent, on the average of the
five years prior to the war, this is considered only as indicative of inflated economic
conditions of which cognizance should not properly be taken in any determination of
the capacity of the ratepayer to meet irrigation charges from productive values."
Under the present system, in effect the land is taxed according to the age of the
tree and its condition. An assessor is appointed to grade the land on this basis about
every fourth year.
3. District Requests.—The brief indicates that the Trustees feel that the amortization period should be extended to be more in keeping with the physical condition and
life expectation of the irrigation works, and that the Renewal Reserve should be built
up to $50,000 without altering the existing scale of irrigation charges.
The District also feels that consideration should be given to the ever-recurring
cycles of inflation and deflation, and changes in marketing conditions as an aftermath
of the war.
The District states that as it has not yet had to take up any of its pipe, it is not
able to estimate accurately the effect of ground-action on that pipe. If the effect has
been bad, a very heavy expense for replacement may fall on the District at any time.
The brief states that the Renewal Reserve represents 18.5 per cent, of the total indebtedness accumulated during 32 per cent, of the amortization period. At this rate the
annual revenue from irrigation charges over and above maintenance and extension
charges is insufficient to build up reserves to provide for the liquidation of the debt
at its due date.
4. Difficulties encountered.—Some of the older settlers who have worked their
land up from the bush testified as to the difficulties encountered. In 1922 there was
a marketing disaster; in 1934, a storm which resulted in severe damage to the trees,
one individual losing over 200 of them. In 1935 there was another disaster in which
the same individual lost over 500 trees. One witness stated that he was certain not
one mature tree in the district to-day was sound; he was of opinion they had all been
affected by the heavy frosts and were likely to topple over in a storm. Codling-moth
has increased rapidly over the years, until now seven or eight sprays, at a cost of $50
to $60 per acre, are necessary each year.
Comments and Recommendations.
This is a district where, in my opinion, it is possible to evolve a long-time policy
that will be in the interest of the community and the Province and, at the same time, DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 61
will place no undue burden on any one. The District has received much less assistance
than have most other districts. At the same time production is not outstandingly high.
It has been advancing favourably. From a long-time point of view, I cannot help but
feel that the Renewal Reserve is of first importance and consequently must be emphasized in any recommendations. The District has been well managed.
I recommend:—
(a.) That the Renewal Reserve be restored to the original figure of $2,500
per annum, and also that any surplus funds that may be available from
time to time be added to this reserve.
(&.) That the District pay $5,000 annually on its indebtedness to the Conservation Fund, and that this token payment be accepted as payment in
full for the amount due that year under Order in Council No. 751, 1933,
and its amendment, Order in Council No. 974, 1936.
GLENMORE IRRIGATION DISTRICT.
(Public Hearings held on July 24th, 1946, at 10 a.m., in the Court-house, Kelowna.)
Summary of Data.
History and Description of the System.—The Glenmore Irrigation District was
incorporated under the " Water Act " in December, 1920.
The system was acquired from a private company, which was in the hands of a
receiver. In order to purchase this system and put it in operating condition, the District borrowed money from the Conservation Fund.
This is a gravity system, supplemented in dry years by pumping water from
Okanagan Lake.
Present Condition.—The works are in about the same condition as those in most
other districts. The system must be patrolled constantly, and repairs must be made
as required. In a few places the works are in bad condition, and replacement costs
are heavy.
Description of Area.—This is a relatively compact area. The soil is loam to heavy
clay. The seepage problem is not as serious as in some other districts, but has given
considerable trouble in certain places.
Water-supply.—Gravity water is stored in two reservoirs on the Mill Creek system,
with a total storage capacity of about 3,300 acre-feet. The estimated water-loss
between intake and delivery is only 14 per cent.
A 200-horse-power electric motor and pump have been installed for pumping water
from Okanagan Lake. The lift is 276 feet, and the pump can supply about 500 acres.
This pump serves to supplement the gravity system in very dry seasons.
The average amount of water delivered each year is about 1% acre-feet. This
amount is a minimum necessary for full production.
Irrigable Acreage.—The irrigable acreage, as calculated for the 1938 formula, is
2,566 acres.
Revenue-producing Acreage.—In 1938 the revenue-producing acreage was 1,772;
in 1946 it was 1,780.
Number of Growers.—There are approximately 100 growers in this District.
Tax Sales.—No property has been sold for taxes since 1938. Prior to that date
a total of 794 acres had reverted to the District for non-payment of taxes. AA 62
THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
Conservation Fund Standing.—The following statement gives the Conservation
Fund standing with regard to both principal and interest, as at March 15th, 1945:—
Total Principal Per Irrigated Acre
and Interest. (approximately).
Borrowed and accrued since 1920  $468,913.39 $247.00
Paid     181,603.73 95.00
Written off     197,336.10 105.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1945       89,973.56 47.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1946       87,691.07 	
1938 Arrangement.—This District is operating under the 1938 arrangement.
By Order in Council No. 751 of 1933 the total indebtedness was reduced from
$171,799.63 to $87,780. The annual amount payable by the Glenmore District was set
at $6,124, the first instalment being due on March 15th, 1937. This date was subsequently altered by Orders in Council Nos. 939A and 974, and by Order in Council No.
648, May 27th, 1937, it was set as March 15th, 1942. In 1938, however, the District
was given the option of coming under the 1938 arrangement, and this it agreed to do.
By the new arrangement, payments had to commence on March 15th, 1939.
On May 3rd, 1944, an adjustment was made whereby the District would increase
its Renewal Reserve for the next five years from $7,571 to $9,241. This had the effect
of reducing the actual payment to the Conservation Fund from approximately $1,891
to $1,438.17. The 1944 adjustment was to continue for a five-year period, after which
the 1938 formula would again be effective.
The following tabulation shows the adjustments in annual payments and the
present requirements:—
Base Rate
per Acre.
Payments to Conservation Fund.
Year of Adjustment and Present Year.
Required bv
O.C. 751. 974
(1933, 1936).
Accepted by
the 1938
Arrangement.
Renewal
Reserve.
1939                     	
$5.34                $6,124.00
5.99         |           6,124.00
5.99                        fi.124.00
$1,891.00
1,438.17
1,438.17
$7,571.00
1945                  	
9,241.00
1946                  	
9,241.00
The standing of the Renewal Reserve Account is given below:
Total payments as at March 15th, 1946	
  $63,908.00
Interest accruals  2,340.00
Total expended from Renewal Reserve as at March 15th,
1946  22,169.90
Amount which should be in Renewal Reserve as at March
15th, 1946  44,078.10
Irrigation Charges.—The following is a summary of irrigation charges levied by
the Glenmore Irrigation District:—
Tax per acre—1945.-  $6.00
1946   (estimated)  6.00
Average toll per acre—1945  2.82
1946  (estimated)  3.25
Total charges per acre—1945  8.82
1946 (estimated average)  9.25
There have been no special assessments in this District since 1938.
There are no domestic water rates.    Irrigation-water may be used for domestic
purposes without charge from March to December by growers in the District. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 63
Production.—This is mainly an apple-producing area, but most of the other tree-
fruits are grown in small quantities.   The vegetable area is limited.
Relative Productivity.—The relative productivity of this area is high, and for purposes of comparison is rated at 90.
Relative Incomes.—It was impossible to segregate the growers in this area in order
to obtain absolutely accurate figures, but, generally speaking, in most cases the incomes
are satisfactory and the proportion of very low-income growers is relatively small.
The Glenmore growers are included in the Kelowna table, No. 16.
Special Factors to be considered.—By special agreement the Okanagan Development and Orchard Company at Ellison receives 25 per cent, of the water from No. 1
dam (capacity about 3,000 acre-feet).
Comments and Recommendation.
The Glenmore brief submits that the present tax and toll levy, totalling $9.25 per
acre, is a reasonable charge for water. In his evidence (pp. 12, 13 of transcript),
Mr. R. W. Corner, Trustee, points out that this figure is based on a minimum replacement requirement. The full replacement programme over a period of forty years
would cost $507,282 and would require $12,682 per year, or a combined tax and toll levy,
under the present tax formula, of $10.83 per acre. Mr. Corner stated that certain
works in the District had been neglected.
The sum now being paid annually into the Conservation Fund under the 1938
arrangement is $1,438.17. In my opinion the District can continue to pay this amount
annually and at the same time set aside the necessary reserves for extensive replacements. I recommend that $1,438.17 be paid annually into the Conservation Fund, and
that this amount be accepted for the full annual payment required under Order in
Council No. 751, 1933, and its amendment, Order in Council No. 974, 1936.
HEFFLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT.
(Public Hearings held July 17th, 1946, at 10 a.m., in Municipal Hall, Kamloops.)
Summary of Data.
History and Description of the System.—The Heffley Irrigation District began as
a water-users community in 1914, became a water district under the " Drainage,
Dyking, and Development Act " in 1920, and was incorporated under the " Water Act "
in 1925.
At the time the water district was formed, the irrigation system was very much
overrecorded and an additional source of water was urgently required. The District
was then split into gravity and pumping lands, and a pumping system was installed
with $32,716.17 borrowed from the Conservation Fund. The annual payment was to
be $3,181.89, divided as follows:—
Gravity lands:   1,243 acres—took over 92 per cent, of the indebtedness to the
Conservation Fund.
Pumping lands:   765 acres—took over 8 per cent, of the indebtedness plus
the cost of operation and maintenance.
Present Condition.—According to the evidence given, there is more land now under
cultivation than there was at the inception of the District. Dams, creeks, and waterways were made to handle a district with much less acreage and much less diversified
agriculture than exist at present. The dams need to be improved, waterways cleaned
out, and general water conservation taken into consideration.
The evidence also indicates that there is no possibility of the District getting a
further water-supply with the existing facilities.    Storage is not adequate for present- AA 64 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
day needs.    The water-supply during the season of use might be increased by putting
a dam on Little Heffley Lake and increasing the size of the dam on Devick Lake.
In connection with the pumping system one pump is too big to be economically
operated for the acreage it serves. The other pumps need to be modernized to bring
them in line with Government specifications. The secondary line needs new poles, and
it is suggested that the portion along the railway and river should be moved away from
the danger of slides.
Description of Area.—This area is relatively flat, with a varied but generally good
soil.
Water-supply.—In 1930 and 1931 only 0.20 and 0.28 acre-feet of water respectively
were available per acre. In 1945, due to exceptional precipitation, the lands received
approximately 1% feet per acre. The evidence indicated that in the early '30's the
irrigated acreage was substantially reduced owing to shortage of water-supply, and
that now, if sufficient water were available, about 300 more acres of land could be put
under cultivation.
Irrigable and Revenue-producing Acreage.—The irrigable acreage, all revenue-
producing, in 1945 was as follows:— Acres.
Gravity, Grade A  1,250
Pumping, Grade B      391
Pumping, Grade C      149
Irrigated Acreage.—The irrigated acreage in 1945 was as follows:—
Acres.
Gravity, Grade A  1,194
Pumping, Grade B      391
Total  1,585
Number of Water-users.—The number of water-users in the District is approximately twenty-nine.
Tax Sales.—In 1931 four properties were put up for tax sale. In recent years no
lands have reverted for non-payment of taxes.
Conservation Fund Standing.—The following statement gives the Conservation
Fund standing of this District with regard to both principal and interest, as at March
15th, 1945:—■ Total Principal Per Irrigated Acre
and Interest. (approximately).
Borrowed and accrued since 1920  $62,748.95 $38.00
Paid     22,755.22 20.00
Written off     18,735.65 11.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1945     11,258.08 7.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1946     10,770.22 	
Not operating under 1938 Arrangement.—This District is not operating under the
1938 arrangement.
Under Order in Council No. 751, 1933, the outstanding indebtedness of the District
was reduced from $21,624.27 to $15,000, and the annual repayment was set at $1,089.
Under Order in Council No. 974, reducing the interest rate, the amount of the annual
repayment was changed to $989.85.
No further adjustment of the indebtedness of this District was made in 1938, and
it has continued to pay. Actually, the amounts paid in to the Conservation Fund by
the Heffley Irrigation District during the period 1939 to 1945, inclusive, averaged
$1,092.63 per annum, or $102.78 more than the required annual instalment.
There is no Renewal Reserve Fund. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 65
Irrigation Charges.—Tax per acre, 1945:—
Gravity, "A"—*
Capital instalment   $1.00
Administrationf        .35
Ordinary works       .20 to $0.50
Total  $1.55 to $1.85
Pumping, " B "—
Demand charge  $1.00
Administrationf       .35
Pumping, " C "—Administrationf       .35
* Of the gravity "A" lands, 99 acres have paid off capital taxes under a special commutation plan.    Therefore
only 1,151 acres of "A" land pay on Capital Account.
t Administration charge is to be increased to $0.45 per acre on " A," " B," and " C " lands in 1947.
Tolls per acre, 1945:  Pumping, " B "—$2.50 per acre-foot, or approximately $3.75
per acre, on the average.
Special assessments per acre since 1938:—
1940:  Special works assessment on pumping lands, 60 cents per acre.
1945:  Special works assessment on gravity "A" lands, $4.20 per acre (for new
dam and diversion).
1946: Special works assessment on gravity "A" lands, $3 per acre to be levied
(to complete dam and ditch work).
Pumping acreage is faced with a heavy special works assessment also in the next
few months to renew the secondary pole-line.
Ditch-maintenance charge:   There is also a cost for ditch-work—an individual
liability under District supervision—on "A" lands, amounting to 75 cents per acre.
Total charges per acre, 1945:—
Gravity, "A" lands—
Taxes   $1.55 to $1.85
Ditch-maintenance       .75 .75
Special works      4.20        4.20
Total   $6.50 to $6.80
Pumping, " B " lands—
Taxes  $1.35
Tolls (average)      3.75
Total   $5.10
There are no domestic water rates levied by this District.
Production.—This is a grain-, potato-, hay-, and seed-producing area. Water is
also needed to irrigate meadows for the production of winter feed for live stock.
The holdings vary from small vegetable-farms to large cattle-ranches.
Relative Productivity.—The productivity of this area in terms of dollars is relatively low, even though physical productivity is good. For purposes of comparison,
I have placed it at 40.
Relative Incomes.—Complete information was not available, but from the figures
obtained, it is quite clear that incomes are relatively low. As in all districts, however,
some producers are doing quite well.
Special Factors to be considered.—1. The pumping system is subject to damage by
lightning-storms, sand clogging the intake pipes, outbreaks of fire,  and landslides. AA 66 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
There are five pumping units spread over 4 to 5 miles of river-bank. The District feels
that this arrangement is not economical, and would prefer to have all electrical units
housed under one roof, with one full-time attendant. In the opinion of the District it is
imperative to split the load on to two transformer units.
2. The Department of National Defence bought out certain of the pump lands.
In lieu of further taxation on these lands the Dominion Government paid a lump sum
of $2,500, and the land was placed in Class D, non-taxable.
3. The secondary power-line of the District was carried for 2 miles on the high-line
poles of the City of Kamloops and was later taken over by the British Columbia Electric
Railway Company. Because of the difficulties of maintenance, the British Columbia
Electric Railway Company moved its high-line up the hill, away from the railway and
the river, and handed the poles of the old line over to the Heffley Irrigation District.
This means that the District is now responsible for the maintenance of the line. This
places a heavy charge upon the pump lands. This charge could not be foreseen, and
therefore was not taken into consideration when the District was incorporated under
the " Water Act." The District now feels it imperative to move a portion of the line
away from the river-bank, where it is subject to slides at any moment.
4. Some of the gravity works now under construction are being financed by special
assessments on the growers. These works will serve to make available for use water
which formerly was lost at freshet times.
5. Some emphasis was placed by the District on the possible burning of the Heffley
Lake watershed in order to provide more rapid run-off for collection in the storage-dam.
6. Four properties in the District have recently changed hands, prices being as
high as $100 to $150 an acre. In the brief it was pointed out that with the addition of
water, the land values increased from $1 per acre to $165-$170 per acre.
7. The District particularly requests the privilege of being able to create a
Renewal Reserve.
Comments and Recommendations.
Two factors stand out above all others in connection with this District:—
(1.) The District has kept up its payments to the Conservation Fund at the
expense of replacements, with the result that the works are now in a very
poor condition and must be not only maintained, but rebuilt or replaced.
(2.)  The  supply of water  is very limited,  and  existing  storage  is totally
inadequate.
These lands cannot stand higher assessments, and consequently, if the District is
to be kept operating efficiently, some change in the arrangement with the Government
is essential.   Additional money should not be borrowed.
I recommend that $300 be paid annually to the Conservation Fund, and that this
token payment be accepted as full payment of the annual amount due under Orders in
Council Nos. 751 and 974—namely, $989.85—and further, that the present tax and toll
rates, not including special assessments, be continued, and the money so raised be used
to renew and rebuild the system.
KEREMEOS IRRIGATION DISTRICT.
(Public Hearings held on August 2nd, 1946, at 7.30 p.m., in Community Hall, Keremeos.)
Summary of Data.
History and Description of the System.—The Keremeos Irrigation District was
incorporated under the " Water Act " in June, 1930. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION: AA 67
This is a gravity system, originally constructed by the Keremeos Land Company
in 1907-08 at a cost of $120,000. In 1922 the company went into liquidation, and the
system was operated by a liquidator for four years and by a local committee for
six years.
At the time of incorporation of the Keremeos Irrigation District in 1930, the
system was in such a state of-disrepair that immediate replacements were necessary.
The District borrowed $55,000 from the Conservation Fund, to be used as follows:
$7,000 for purchase of the system; $3,500 for a bridge across the Similkameen River
at Ashnola, to carry the Keremeos Irrigation District siphon; $44,500 for renewal and
extension of the distribution system.
Present Condition.—According to the schedule attached to the Keremeos brief,
replacements are urgently needed. In the period 1938 to 1945 a total of $26,854.01 was
spent on replacements, or $3,356.75 per year. The Renewal Reserve Fund provided,
during that period, for $26,400. Over the next five-year period the estimates for
renewals total $32,702. This makes no provision for extensions or new constructions
of any kind.
Description of Area.—The soil on the benches is partly heavy volcanic ash, well
adapted to fruit-growing, but here and there are streaks of gravel. On the gravel
lands it is difficult to retain moisture during the dry season.
On the low lands there is some alkali, and the water-table is so high at certain times
of the year that it retards growth.
Water-supply.—The water-supply, though not unlimited, is in plentiful supply and
is drawn direct from the Ashnola River.
Irrigable Acreage.—The irrigable acreage, as calculated for the 1938 formula,
is 1,122.
Revenue-producing Acreage.—The revenue-producing acreage has increased, as is
shown:  1938, 762 acres;  1945, 1,000.01 acres.
Irrigated Acreage.—The irrigated acreage in 1945 was 893.42.
Number of Growers.—There were 121 growers receiving irrigation-water from the
District in 1945;  by 1946 the number had increased to 127.
Tax Sales.—At one time there were many tax sales in Keremeos, and many acres
reverted to the Soldiers' Settlement Board. Of the twelve original holders of Soldiers'
Settlement land, only one or two are now left in Keremeos.
One parcel of land was sold for taxes in 1941. The last sale announced was in
1944, but all properties were redeemed before the sale actually took place.
Conservation Fund Standing.—The following statement gives the Conservation
Fund standing of this District with regard to both principal and interest, as at March
15th, 1945:  Total Principal      Per Irrigated Acre
and Interest. (approximately).
Borrowed and accrued since 1930  $89,388.20 $94.00
Paid ,  13,829.65 15.00
Written off or not charged  18,524.46 19.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1945  57,034.09 60.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1946  56,082.86               	
1938 Arrangement.—By Order in Council No. 751, 1933, the outstanding indebtedness of this District was reduced from $55,514 to $55,383.67, with an annual repayment
of $3,433.
The District was placed under the 1938 arrangement, with a Renewal Reserve
requirement of $3,000 annually.    In 1945, at the request of the District, this amount AA 68
THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
was  raised to $4,250.    The  following tabulation  shows the adjustments  in  annual
payments and the present requirements:—
Base Rate
per Acre.
Payments to Conservation Fund.
Year of Adjustment and Present Year.
Required by
O.C. 751, 974
(1933, 1936).
Accepted by
the 1938
Arrangement.
Renewal
Reserve.
1939	
$5.73
6.85
6.85
$3,433.00
3,433.00
3,433.00
$1,873.82
1,911.85
1,911.85
$3,000.00
1945	
4,250.00
1946	
4,260.00
The standing of the Renewal Reserve Account is given below :-
Total payments as at March 15th, 1946	
Interest accruals 	
$26,731.40
Total expended on renewals as at March 15th, 1946     24,461.43*
Balance which should be in Renewal Reserve as at March
15th, 1946       3,639.85
* Supplied partly from general funds.
Irrigation Charges.—The following is a summary of irrigation charges levied by
the Keremeos Irrigation District:— Taxes. Toils.
"A" lands (per acre)  $6.50 $6.50
"B" lands (per acre)     2.00 11.00
"C" lands (per acre)      13.00
Average per acre
$5.95
$6.80
The total of the tax and toll on each acre of land irrigated must equal $13.
There have been no special assessments in this District since 1938.
There are no domestic water rates.
Production.—Production consists mainly of tree-fruits—mostly apples, peaches,
apricots, and prunes.    There are also some plantings of cantaloupe.
Relative Productivity.—There were many conflicting opinions about the productivity of this district. It is a good district and will improve, but for purposes of
comparison I have placed the relative productivity at 65. Total receipts per farm are
not as high as in some other districts.
Relative Incomes.— (See Table 14.)
Special Factors to be considered.—When it took over from the liquidator of the
Keremeos Land Company, the District had to accept a certain agreement the Land
Company had with the Indian Department. This agreement still stands, and the District must supply water to some 300 acres of Indian land from which it gets no revenue.
Comments and Recommendations.
The Keremeos brief states as follows:—
"The principal amount of the District Loan is just the same today as it was in
1936, not one dollar of it having been wiped out. The Trustees ask your consideration
of this point, as several Districts have received substantial cuts in their Loans, and
why not the same treatment for all. The Interest on the District Loan amounts to
$2,492 per year and it looks very much as though we could carry on till the end of
time, under the present arrangement, and still owe the Province of B.C. $55,000."
The 1933 adjustment reduced the outstanding indebtedness of this District from
$55,514 to $55,383.67—a decrease of $130.33. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 69
This District has apparently been through very hard times, and much property
has been up for sale through non-payment of taxes.
One witness stated that for the first four years he owned land in the District he
operated a store and the orchard was just a " sink hole " for money made in the store.
In the last four years, he stated, returns had been satisfactory, but previous to that
it was a losing proposition, and if he had not been a " hustler," buying and selling
fruit wholesale, he could not have lived.
Another witness, one of the best farmers in the District, stated that at one time
his property had been up for tax sale, but that he had ultimately redeemed it.    He
stated that returns had been so poor it took him fourteen years to repay a debt of.
$1,000 which he owed to the bank.    Now returns are satisfactory, and have been so
for the past few years.
The District brief points out that per acre charges in the District have been gradually raised to the maximum growers can pay and stay in business, even in times of
good prices.    Since 1941 the District general budget has risen from $8,000 to $12,000.
Strong emphasis must be placed on a growing Renewal Reserve requirement.
I recommend that $1,200 be paid annually into the Conservation Fund, and that
this amount be accepted for the full annual payment due under Order in Council No.
751, 1933, and its amendment, Order in Council No. 974, 1936.
NARAMATA IRRIGATION DISTRICT.
(Public Hearings held July 31st, 1946, at 9 p.m., in Irrigation District Office,
Naramata.)
Summary of Data.
History and Description of the System.—The Naramata Irrigation District was
incorporated under the " Water Act " in November, 1920.
The system was taken over from a private company which was no longer able to
maintain it.
It is a gravity system, consisting originally of wooden flumes and dirt ditches.
The wooden flumes proved inadequate and were replaced with pipe. Since 1919 a total
of 90,783 feet of pipe has been installed at a cost of approximately $136,342.
Present Condition.—According to the District brief, extensive renewals are now
overdue. Owing to the high pressure, there have been many burst pipes and pin-hole
leaks during the past season. The secretary states that actions against the District
by the water-users for damages resulting from burst domestic tanks, flooding of
orchards, cutting, and erosion have only been avoided through the growers' kind consideration. In his opinion a settling-basin, to clear out sand and to reduce the very
high pressure, is absolutely necessary.   This will cost about $2,000.
Description of Area.—The land is rolling, with deep slopes and very deep gullies,
and consists of a narrow strip of bench land bordering Okanagan Lake, about 5 miles
in length.
The soil contains some alkali. A very sharp sand is carried in the water. This
sand wears away the pipe-lines, resulting in heavy renewal costs.
The land is classified for assessment purposes as follows:—
Grade A: Gets irrigation and domestic water.
Grade B: Arable and irrigable, but gets no water now.
Grade C: Town land, gets domestic water only.
Grade D: Waste land, gullies, etc.;  gets no water.
Water-supply.—According to the brief, .the Naramata District has never had sufficient water.    Every effort is being made to utilize all the water available.    A new AA 70
THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
dam is under construction at Eleanor Lake to hold approximately 200 acre-feet of water
in addition. Water is at present stored in Summit Lake, Big Meadows Dam, and Naramata Lake, which have a total storage capacity of over 1,100 acre-feet.
It is planned to deliver about 2% acre-feet, but the total delivered is not actually
measured.
Irrigable Acreage.—The irrigable acreage, as calculated in the 1938 formula, is
1,061.
Revenue-producing Acreage.—The revenue-producing acreage has increased as
follows:   1938, 837 acres;  1946, 973.71 acres.
Irrigated Acreage.—The irrigated acreage in 1946 is 901.76.
Number of Growers.—There are approximately 120 growers in the District.
Conservation Fund Standing.—The following statement gives the Conservation
Fund standing of this District with regard to both principal and interest, as at March
15th, 1945:—
Borrowed and accrued since 1920
Paid	
Written off or not charged	
Owing as at March 15th, 1945
Owing as at March 15th, 1946
Total Principal
Per Irrigated Acre
and Interest.
(approximately).
$228,438.51
$263.00
85,510.93
98.00
85,185.26
98.00
57,742.32
67.00
58,873.54*
* Naramata has withheld its token payment this year, pending the report of this Commission.
1938 Arrangement.—This District is operating under the 1938 arrangement. By
Order in Council No. 751 of 1933 the total indebtedness of the District to the Conservation Fund was reduced from $89,431.52 to $65,000,. and the annual instalment was set
at $4,030, payments to commence on March 15th, 1937. This date was later changed
by Order in Council No. 1557 to March 15th, 1939.
Under the 1938 arrangement the District was required to set aside $4,265 for
Renewal Reserve annually.    In 1939 this was adjusted to $5,610.
The following tabulation shows the adjustment in annual payments and the present
requirements:—
Base Rate
per Acre.
Payments to Conservation Fund.
Year of Adjustment and Present Year.
Required by
O.C. 751, 974
(1933, 1936).
Accepted by
the 1938
Arrangement.
Renewal
Reserve.
1939	
$9.08
9.08
$4,030.00
4,030.00
$2,562.00
*
$5,610.00
5,610.00
1946.	
* Not yet paid.
Owing to the fact that the District was expending practically all of the amount
considered necessary for replacements every year, it was not required to set up a
special Renewal Reserve Account. In the opinion of the Department of Lands the
District should now be required to set up such an account in its books in accordance
with the 1938 arrangement.
The Renewal Reserve requirements under the 1938 formula, from 1939 to March
15th, 1946, total $44,880. In that period the amount actually expended on renewals
was $45,180.65.
Irrigation Charges.—The following is a summary of irrigation charges levied by
the Naramata Irrigation District:—
Tax per acre, 1945 and 1946—
' A " land _._  $5.50
" B " land      4.00
Average per irrigated acre     5.62 DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 71
Tolls per acre—
1945 :  $7.00
1946     7.00
Special assessments per acre (for construction of new dam at
Eleanor Lake) —
1945, toll of      7.50
1946, toll of      5.00
Total irrigation charges per acre—
1945, " A " land  20.00
1946, " A " land  17.50
Domestic rates: North benches, $10.50 per year; south benches, $5.25 per year;
"C" land (town), $18 per year plus $5.50 per acre as Grade A and $2 per acre as
Grade C.
Production.—Production consists of tree-fruits—mostly apples, with some peaches,
apricots, and other stone-fruits.   There are a few vineyards.
Relative Productivity.—In the opinion of Mr. R. P. Murray, District Field Inspector, Department of Agriculture, the productivity of the Naramata District would be
less than that of Kaleden and Pentiqton, about equal to that of Keremeos, and greater
than that of Cawston. Naramata's productivity would be less than that of Kaleden
and Penticton largely because of the lack of water, but also partly due to the general
topography. Some of the Naramata orchards are harder to handle than those at
Penticton because of the steep slopes and gullies, and with the water shortage they
have a tendency to dry up early in the season. It is not a question of suitability of
varieties.
Since 1942 prices have been improving, and this has enabled growers to buy more
fertilizer. The application of additional fertilizer has resulted in increased production
from 1942 onwards.
Many of the trees have reached full bearing, and from now on will be likely to
depreciate.
For purposes of comparison, I have placed the relative productivity of Naramata
at 80.
Relative Incomes.— (See Table 17.)
Special Factors to be considered.—The water shortage in this District constitutes
a real problem. In an effort to meet the situation, a new dam is being constructed at
Eleanor Lake. In 1945 a special toll was levied on the water-users, at the rate of $7.50
per acre, to assist in paying for this dam; a further special toll of $5 per acre will be
necessary in 1946 for the same purpose.
In this connection it should be noted that " B " land, although it gets no water,
pays a tax of $4 per acre. It is arable and irrigable land, and it was intended that
water should be supplied to it upon request of the owners. In recent years, however,
because of shortage of supply, the District has had to refuse to supply water to this
land.
Comments and Recommendation.
There would appear to be a misunderstanding in this District with regard to the
terms of the 1938 arrangement. According to the evidence, the District officials are
not certain as to how much credit they receive towards the repayment of their indebtedness when they make their annual token payment to the Conservation Fund as required under the 1938 arrangement.
In my opinion somewhat stronger emphasis should be placed on the Renewal
Reserve. The system is old, and even though funds have been raised by special assessment, most of them have been used for new construction, and a great deal of replacement-work remains to be done. AA 72 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
I believe, however, that the distribution of the production of the District and the
initiative and foresight of the orchardists are such that they can meet a large share
of their obligations as set out under the 1938 arrangement.
I recommend that $2,562 be paid annually into the Conservation Fund, and that
this amount be accepted for the full annual payment as required under Order in Council
No. 751, 1933, and its amendment, Order in Council No. 974, 1936.
OKANAGAN FALLS IRRIGATION DISTRICT.
(Public Hearings held on August 1st, 1946, at 7 p.m., in the Community Hall,
Okanagan Falls.)
Summary of Data.
History and Description of the System.—The Okanagan Falls Irrigation District
was incorporated under the " Water Act" in August, 1934, and was administered from
its inception until April 16th, 1941, by a Board of Trustees. It is now in the hands
of a receiver.
This is a combined gravity and pumping system. The flumes and dam were built
by the District with money borrowed from the Okanagan Falls Development Company.
In 1936 the dam failed, causing considerable damage. It was rebuilt in 1941, but again
went out in 1944.
The area is divided as follows:—
Lower Bench:   Irrigated with water pumped from Okanagan River.
Middle Bench and Upper Bench:   Obtain gravity water from McLean and
Shuttleworth Creeks.
Present Condition.—The turbine and pump on the river were installed secondhand and require constant attention.    The pipe is quite old and repairs are necessary.
The flumes of the gravity system should be replaced.
No new dam has been built to replace the one which went out in 1944.
Description of Area.—The area is rolling and relatively easily cultivated, but District plantings are scattered and much land is used for hay.
Water-supply.—The 82.95 acres on the Lower Bench receive an adequate water-
supply from the river. The Middle and Upper Benches, comprising 83 and 219.5 acres
respectively, do not receive sufficient water now that there is no provision for storage.
Irrigable Acreage.—The irrigable acreage is approximately 400.
Revenue-producing Acreage.—The revenue-producing acreage in 1946 was 385.45
acres.
Irrigated Acreage.—The total number of acres irrigated in 1946 was 260.45.
Conservation Fund Standing.—Money was not loaned to this District from the
Conservation Fund, and therefore it did not come under the terms of Order in Council
No. 751 of 1933 or under the 1938 arrangement.
The District originally borrowed money from the Okanagan Falls Development
Company to build the dam on Shuttleworth Creek at Campbell Meadows. When the
dam went out, the District defaulted on its first instalment of the repayment, and the
company sued and obtained a judgment. To save the investment of the land-owners,
the Government made an agreement with the company in February, 1941, whereby
the company reduced the amount of its judgment to $10,000, accepted the bonds of the
District to that amount, and gave a quit claim to the amount of the balance owing.
The Government advanced $15,000 to the District to build a new dam, likewise accepting the bonds of the District for $10,000. On April 16th, 1941, the affairs of the District were placed in the hands of a receiver appointed by the Government. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 73
The debt to the Government as at March 15th, 1946, was as follows:—
Principal borrowed  $15,000.00
Principal repaid  618.00
Principal forgiven        5,000.00
Principal owing       9,382.00
Interest accrued    	
Interest paid      1,774.00
Interest forgiven     	
Interest owing     	
Present debt to the Government       9,382.00
No provision is being made for renewals and replacements in this District.
Irrigation Charges.—The following is a summary of irrigation charges levied by
the Okanagan Falls Irrigation District:—
Tax per acre, 1946  $3.50
Toll per acre, 1946     5.50
Total charges, 1946  $9.00*
* This also represents the minimum charge per acre or fraction thereof.
There have been no special assessments in this District.
There are no domestic water rates.
Production.—With regard to production the area is divided as follows:—
Acres.
Orchards _'     86.00
Hay-lands and ground crops  174.45
Uncultivated land  125.00
The uncultivated lands pay the same taxes and tolls as are required of the productive lands, but they are not supplied with water.
Of a total of 8,331 trees planted, 7,444 are from 1 to 5 years old, 411 are from 6
to 10 years old, and 476 trees are over 10 years old. It is obvious that the highest-
priced crop, the yield from the orchard areas, is very small.
Relative Productivity.—No information is available with regard to the relative
productivity of this District. In my opinion the soil and climate are suitable for a
production fully as heavy as that of adjoining districts.
Relative Incomes.—It was not possible to obtain information with regard to relative incomes in this District.
Special Factors to be considered.
1. Campbell Meadows Dam.—On May 16th, 1936, the Campbell Meadows dam on
Shuttleworth Creek failed, causing considerable damage to the lands below it. The
dam was rebuilt with money borrowed from the Government, but on May 27th, 1944,
this new dam went out, and once again the lands were flooded. Since the disaster of
1944 it has not been replaced.
The Upper Bench, the major portion of the District (219.5 acres), depends upon
storage water for its irrigation. Since the failure of the dam in 1944 there has been
no storage water available, and this area is without water from the latter part of July
on to the end of the season. This applies in only slightly less degree to the Middle
Bench, consisting of 83 acres.
The two previous dams were built of earth. A new dam of a more permanent type
of construction would enable the District to supply both the Middle and Upper Benches
with water.    Failing that, nothing can be done for the Upper Benches.    The Middle AA 74 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
Benches could be supplied from the river if a new drive on the present turbine and
pump were installed with sufficient power to raise the water to the higher levels. An
alternative method for supplying the Middle Bench would be to install a sump and
booster pump to lift the waters now supplied by the turbine and pump beyond the
Lower Bench to the higher levels of the Middle Bench. Such action, however, would
still leave the large area of the Upper Bench without water.
2. Pay Taxes ivithout getting Water.—It should be noted that under the present
condition of the system, owners are required to pay taxes on their total acreage,
although water-supply and distribution system are not sufficient to irrigate the whole
acreage. It is calculated that these owners pay a total of $1,125 per year, for which
they receive no return.    There are at least 150 acres on the Upper Bench not in use.
3. Suit for Damages.—When the earth dam at Campbell Meadows went out in
1944, damage was caused to the lands below the dam. In this connection a suit has
been instituted in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against the Okanagan Falls
Irrigation District for unstated damages.
4. District is Insolvent.—As stated before, this District has been in the hands of
a receiver since April of 1941. The balance-sheet as at March 31st, 1946, shows a
deficit of $10,886.81.
The proceeds of the tax levy must go to retire the District debentures. The proceeds of the toll levy do not cover the cost of operation and maintenance. There are,
in addition, debts of $500 borrowed from the Canadian Bank of Commerce and $412
owed to the Kaleden Irrigation District, and there would appear to be no source of
revenue from which these can be paid. Growers claim that with the loss of storage
water when the dam failed went the paying power of their land, except for the few
acres on the Lower Bench. They cannot afford to pay even the present charges, let
alone pay increased tolls, unless their land is supplied with water.
5. Land Sales.—Some land has changed hands in recent years. This has been
mainly on the lake-shore, where water is supplied by the pumps, or, if on the Upper
Benches, while the dam was still holding.
6. Hay-lands.—Growers maintain that they cannot produce hay economically with
irrigation charges totalling $9 per acre. One witness was of opinion that hay-land
cannot pay more than $5 per acre, as compared with $8 per acre paid by full-bearing
orchards, as at Oliver.
7. District Requests.—In its brief this District makes the following requests:—
(1.)  That all debts owing the Provincial Government should be written off.
(2.) That further moneys be made available to replace worn-out portions of
the system and for the construction of a " permanent " dam to hold
storage water. It is estimated roughly that at least $30,000 would be
required for these purposes, allowing for extending the flumes on the
Upper Bench.    There would be some additional cost for ditches.
8. Okanagan Falls Development Company.—The manager of this company testified
that the company owns 220 acres of land in the District. Only 18 of the 220 acres are
planted to orchard, and 40 acres are in hay. The balance is not productive. The company has not been selling any land since the dam went out.
This company suggests that the Government release its claim on the District. The
manager intimated that if the Government would wipe out its portion of the remaining
debt and replace the dam, the company also would be willing to wipe out the portion of
the debt still owing to it by the District.
Comments and Recommendation.
This District has suffered two major disasters within the space of eight years.
It is in the unfortunate position of being asked to pay for two dams, neither of which DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 75
is still functioning. Without a new dam it cannot supply its lands with sufficient water
to enable them to produce enough to pay for the old dams.
The history of one orchard is eloquent testimony of conditions in this District.
The owner, who has had 4 acres of orchard-land for eighteen or twenty years, has
planted trees three times, but this is the first year he has succeeded in producing a crop
of peaches. The first time he planted, his trees were wiped out by the failure of the
dam. The second planting was lost in the flood consequent upon the failure of the
second dam. If he had not had outside work, he would not have been able to carry on
at all.
It is significant also that, to pay the present tolls, some of the growers find it
necessary to assist with repairs to the system, getting credit on the toll levy in lieu
of wages.
As can be seen from the above, the District is in a most difficult situation. From
the point of view of the District it would appear reasonable that the present indebtedness both to the company and to the Government be written off if possible, or that some
arrangement be made between the company and the Government to develop the District.
It might also be hoped that the suit for damages recently instituted in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia would be dropped. With the past cleared away on the above
items, a fresh start could be made.
This implies the rebuilding of the dam and making provision for the necessary
storage water.    Without this the District cannot be developed economically.
Properly developed, this District could pay about $900 annually on a loan amortized
over a period of years. As the matter now stands, the District can pay nothing on its
indebtedness if the payment has to come from the earnings of the District. Development cost per acre would not be high.
While I believe the above to be a fair statement, it is not my problem, and, as difficult as the situation is, a recommendation must be made. I recommend that the total
present indebtedness be amortized over a period of thirty years and that a token payment of $100 be accepted annually as full payment for the amount due for any one year.
OYAMA IRRIGATION DISTRICT.
(Public Hearings held on July 19th, 1946, at 10 a.m., in the City Hall, Vernon.)
Summary of Data.
History and Description of the System.—The Oyama Irrigation District was incorporated under the " Water Act " in September, 1923.
This was originally a gravity system owned by the Long Lake Irrigation Company,
getting water from Oyama Lake. It was found that the water rights were secondary
to those of the Woods Lake Water Company, with the exception of the Lumby record,
and it was therefore decided to form a district. The system was in poor condition, and
the District was refused a loan from the Conservation Fund for renewals, as it was
considered that the water licences were of too little value.
The District borrowed $35,000 in the open market, giving 15-year bonds at 8 per
cent.    These were repaid by 1939.
For some years the system continued to operate with gravity water, but between
1924 and 1931 there was only one year when the system was filled. During this period,
although the tax per acre was $11 plus $2.50 for maintenance, it was not found possible
to do more than pay the bond issue, and nothing was set up as a sinking fund.
As water was insufficient, the District sold its water rights to the Woods Lake
Water Company for $5,000 and purchased and installed four pumps to pump water from
Woods Lake and Kalamalka Lake to a maximum elevation of 360 feet.    Between 1929 AA 76 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
and 1932 the District borrowed a total of $13,500 from the Conservation Fund to complete pump installations.
Present Condition.—Capital expenditure for new pipe and sumps during the period
1939 to 1945 amounted to $15,191.06. Two new pumps were installed in 1945. According to the brief and to statements made by the District secretary, the entire system
wants rehabilitating, at an estimated cost of $20,000. The main centre portion of the
system requires remodelling immediately. The brief shows necessary expenditure of
$15,000 for replacements to the low-level system and $5,000 to recondition the high-level
system. Rising costs of materials and labour might greatly affect the general budget
in this connection.
Description of Area.—The District is situated on Long Lake, 13 miles south of
Vernon. It is very compact and slopes sharply to the lake. There is little erosion and
little seepage.
Water-supply.—At present 2% acre-feet of water are supplied on the higher levels.
It is claimed that at Oliver growers receive as much as 5 acre-feet or more. Oyama
growers feel that they could use this amount of water to advantage. More water is
available from the lake, but it would require more capital expenditure to install pumps
to utilize this.
The trees, when observed in July, 1946, were not getting quite enough water.
Irrigable Acreage.—There are approximately 350 acres of irrigable land.
Revenue-producing Acreage.—The revenue-producing irrigated acreage in 1946
was 292.34.
Number of Growers.—There were twenty-seven growers in the District using
irrigation-water in 1945.
Conservation Fund Standing.—The following statement gives the Conservation
Fund standing of this District with regard to both principal and interest, as at March
15th,   1945:  Total Principal      Per Irrigated Acre
and Interest. (approximately).
Borrowed and accrued since 1929  $22,660.46 $65.00
Paid         945.22 3.00
Written off     11,715.24 33.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1945 (principal) ____    10,000.00 29.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1946 (principal) ____      9,155.00* 	
* The reduction in the principal owing in 1946 was brought about by certain areas buying their way out of the
District by paying $845 into the Conservation Fund.
Not operating under the 1938 Arrangement.—This District is not operating under
the 1938 arrangement.
By Order in Council No. 751, 1933, the total indebtedness of the Oyama Irrigation
District was reduced from $14,122.05 to $14,087.10—a decrease of $34.95. The first
instalment of $1,023.72 was not due until March 15th, 1939. This amount was reduced
by Order in Council No. 974, 1936, to $873.40. As the instalment of $873.40 was not
due until 1939, no adjustment of the indebtedness of the District was made in 1938.
In 1941 an adjustment was made. It was found that the estimated cost of replacements over the six-year period 1941 to 1946 averaged $3,500 per annum, or about $10
per acre. In addition, pumping charges would be approximately $12 per acre, without
any allowance for repayment to the Conservation Fund. In view of these facts, Order
in Council No. 540 was approved on April 22nd, 1941, reducing the total amount of the
debt from $16,149 to $10,000, to be repaid in fifteen annual instalments of $930, to
commence on March 15th, 1947, and remitting interest until March 15th, 1946.
As stated previously, since that time certain lands have bought their way out of
the District by paying $845 to the Conservation Fund, thus further reducing the
indebtedness to $9,155, and reducing the amount of the annual instalment accordingly.
This District has no Renewal Reserve Account. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 77
Irrigation Charges.—The following is a summary of irrigation charges levied by
the Oyama Irrigation District:—
Tax per acre—
1945 $15.00
1946    15.00
Toll per acre—
1945    13.00
1946    12.50
Total charges per acre—
1945 :    28.00
1946    27.50
Special assessments since 1938 have been as follows:—
1943: $2,000 to purchase metal pipe for replacement.
1945: $6,000 to purchase metal pipe and install two pumping units at north
and south ends of the system; $1,000 to purchase metal pipe for
replacement.
A flat rate for domestic water of $5 per annum is collected from four residents who
are not farmers.
Production.—Apples constitute 90 to 95 per cent, of the production. This is a
good producing area.
Relative Productivity.—As stated previously, the productivity is quite good. For
purposes of comparison I have placed the relative productivity at 80.
Relative Incomes.— (See Table 18.)
Special Factors to be considered.—Because of its heavy bonded indebtedness,
Oyama Irrigation District was not able to accumulate a Renewal Reserve. About the
same time the bonded indebtedness of $35,000 was retired, heavy replacements became
necessary. As the District brief puts it: " The life of the bonds corresponded in point
of time to the life of the system."
During the period 1931 to 1946 the irrigation rate per acre was never less than
$21.25 and went as high as $30.    The District secretary states:—
" The costs of operation run from $25 to $30 per acre, and this is too heavy a
burden. Under existing condition of system, cannot repay indebtedness to the Province,
or any portion of it."
In 1945 it was necessary to install two new pumping units. The District was
refused an additional loan from the Conservation Fund to purchase these pumps, but
borrowed $6,000 privately, repayable in six years at 5 per cent. Of this amount,
$5,000 is still owing.
District Requests.—The Oyama Irrigation District asks complete remission of the
remaining indebtedness of $9,155. It states that although, in an effort to repay, the
rate charged the water-users was more than doubled with the installation of the
pumping system, the District has never been able to repay anything on interest or
principal over the past twenty years.
The District feels very strongly that orchardists in the valley should be placed on
an even basis. It points out that growers at Oliver pay only about one-quarter of the
charges for irrigation paid by growers at Oyama, yet Oyama growers must compete
with Oliver on the market.
Comments and Recommendation.
The're is no indication that this District will be able to meet its annual payment
based on $9,155 amortized over a period of fifteen years, beginning on March 15th,
1947.    The tax is already $15 an acre for replacements, and tolls for operation were AA 78 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
$12.50 per acre in 1946.    It has not been able to build up a reserve even in relatively
good times.
I recommend that a modified form of the 1938 arrangement be given effect to;
that the District pay $100 annually to the Conservation Fund, and that this $100 be
accepted as payment in full for the amortized sum due each year for fifteen years
beginning March 15th, 1947.
PEACHLAND IRRIGATION DISTRICT.
(Public Hearings held on August 1st, 1946, at 11.15 a.m., in Municipal Hall, Peachland.)
Summary of Data.
History and Description of the System.—The Peachland Irrigation District was
incorporated under the " Water Act " in August, 1920.
This is a gravity system, first laid out in 1906 by the Peachland Townsite Company. The company did not keep up repairs, and the condition of the system and the
amount of storage left much to be desired. Growers received insufficient water, and
to protect their investment in the land, they formed an improvement district and purchased the system with $6,000 borrowed from the Conservation Fund.
The water is brought down part way in Peachland Creek, and the rest of the way
by earth ditch and wood flume. Distribution to growers is mostly by wooden flume,
with some metal pipe.
Present Condition.—According to the District brief, a great part of the works
installed with money borrowed from the Conservation Fund is now obsolete. It is
estimated that to put the system in good shape and to provide adequate storage, the
District would require approximately $25,000 to $30,000.
Present replacements and installations are being made with concrete in an endeavour to provide structures which will outlive the period of indebtedness entailed in their
construction.
Description of Area.—Peachland is relatively compact, being made up mostly of
closely associated small farms. It is somewhat more hilly than most districts. The
soil is average in quality.
Water-supply.—One of the biggest problems of this District is the shortage of
water. The present supply comes from Peachland Creek and a diversion from MacDonald Creek. Water is stored in the Wilson Lake reservoir and in the North Fork
reservoir, with a total capacity of about 800 acre-feet.
The evidence indicated that 2% feet of water per acre was supplied to growers
during the season.    It was claimed that this was insufficient for conditions in the area.
Irrigable Acreage.—The irrigable acreage in this district is 771.
Revenue-producing Acreage.—The revenue-producing and irrigated acreage has
increased as follows:  1938, 331 acres;   1946, 439y2 acres.
Number of Growers.—There are approximately ninety growers in the District.
Number of Parcels of Land.—There are 171 parcels of land in the District.
Tax Sales.—During the drought period of 1929 to 1931 much of the irrigated land
in Peachland reverted to the municipality for non-payment of taxes.
Conservation Fund Standing.—The following statement gives the Conservation
Fund standing of this District with regard to both principal and interest, as at March
15th,  1945:     ■ Total Principal      Per Irrigated Acre
and Interest. (approximately).
Borrowed and accrued since 1920  $81,446.09 $204.00
Paid     21,765.22 55.00
Written off or not charged     51,868.17 130.00 DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 79
Total Principal      Per Irrigated Acre
and Interest. (approximately).
Owing in 1933     $5,741.00 $14.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1945       7,812.70 19.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1946       8,164.27 	
Not operating under 1938 Arrangement.—This District is not operating under the
1938 arrangement.
Under Order in Council No. 751 of 1933 the outstanding indebtedness of the District was reduced from $40,050.52 to $5,741. The annual instalment was set at $355.92,
the first payment being due March 15th, 1939. As this first instalment was not yet
due at the time negotiations were made with other districts, Peachland was not put
under the 1938 arrangement.
Calculations were made showing how the 1938 formula would work out for Peachland. With the annual instalment required under Order in Council No. 751 set at
$356 and a Renewal Reserve requirement (calculated on estimates for the period 1938
to 1943, inclusive) of $1,523 per year, the base rate would have been $2.43 per acre.
The total irrigable acreage was 771, but the total acreage irrigated was only 331. The
amount of revenue received with the base rate of $2.43 per acre would have totalled
$805—far below the amount required for Renewal Reserve. This would leave no
money available for the Conservation Fund, and accordingly the 1938 arrangement
could not be put into effect. It was suggested at the time that upon expiration of the
six years on which the Renewal Reserve was estimated, the amount of the Renewal
Reserve requirement should be reconsidered, as it could possibly be reduced.
The actual expenditures on renewals by Peachland have exceeded the estimated
figure of $1,523 by $900 per annum, and it is anticipated by the District that the cost
of renewals will continue far in excess of $1,523 per annum. From 1943 to 1945 this
District averaged $3,237 per annum for renewals.
Since nothing has been paid into the Conservation Fund and interest has accumulated, the total indebtedness of the District has increased since 1933 from $5,741 to
$8,164.27.
Irrigation Charges.—The following is a summary of irrigation charges levied by
the Peachland Irrigation District:—
Tax per acre, 1946:   $21 per acre plus $5 per parcel.
Toll per acre, 1946:  None.
Special assessments:* Since 1938 the following special assessments have been
made:—
1938:   $3,800 for road to headwaters and the North Fork flume.
1943:   $2,800 for 2,200 feet of main flume.
1944:   $4,000 for the MacDonald Creek diversion.
1946:   $9,000 for the construction of a new dam.
Average total charges per acre in 1946, $22.
There are no domestic water rates. Domestic water is not supplied separately
from irrigation-water.
Production.—Production consists almost entirely of tree-fruits—mostly apples,
with some peaches and other stone-fruits.
Relative Productivity.—Production per tree is quite good, but because the orchards
are small, the gross income per farm is not high. For purposes of comparison, I have
placed the relative productivity of this district at 65.
Relative Incomes.— (See Table 19.)
* In this District, special assessments are included in the regular tax levy. AA 80 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
Special Factors to be considered.
1. Penask Creek.—Shortly after the District purchased the irrigation system from
the Peachland Townsite Company, it became necessary to increase the water-supply, and
a ditch was dug diverting water from Penask Creek.
In 1929 a severe drought occurred in the Peachland Creek watershed. In the same
year the discovery was made that the District had failed to obtain a licence to divert
water from Penask Creek, and this water consequently was not available. The growers
in Peachland, as a result, lost that year's crop and many of their trees. Still more
trees died out in the following year due to the water-shortage, so that by the spring
of 1931 only 20 per cent, of the plantings remained. The Minister of Lands ordered a
temporary licence to divert the Penask water in 1931 in order to save the remaining
trees, but the water was not made available to the District on a permanent basis. As a
result, many farms were abandoned and others were sold to new owners at very small
prices, most of the people who remained being pensioners or those having outside
incomes. Between 1929 and 1932 the number of irrigated acres dropped from 550
to 300.
Reduced irrigated acreage meant reduced revenues, out of which only the most
urgent repairs could be attended to, with the result that the system, already old, quickly
depreciated.
2. Lands coming back into Production.—In recent years precipitation has increased
slightly, so that new settlers have been attracted to the District, raising the total
irrigated acreage to close to 440.
In addition, war veterans are taking up lands which had reverted to the municipality for non-payment of taxes during the drought years. If the District supplies
water to these lands, there will not be enough water to go around. If it refuses to
supply the water, it will be the veterans who will suffer. The District feels keenly its
moral obligation to furnish water to the lands which were once irrigated, and which
are now being brought into production again by veterans. According to its understanding, the District is obligated to supply water to up to 550 acres if the owners
demand it.     There is not enough water under present conditions for 440 acres.
3. Requirements of the District.—The Trustees are faced with the problem of
increasing the size of existing flumes, built during the period of low revenue; replacing flumes that have outlived their usefulness; finding additional storage to compensate for the loss of the Penask waters; and at the same time attempting to pay back
their debt to the Conservation Fund.
A minimum of $5,400 is needed this fall to raise the North Fork dam or construct
a new dam at another site. The amount of water gained by raising North Fork dam
a few feet would still barely meet the requirements of the District for water.
In 1930 a ditch and flume diversion was made to carry water from Peachland Creek
into the North Fork storage. This was financed by $5,000 borrowed from the Conservation Fund, but the diversion was washed out in places before it ever carried water.
Later it had to be replaced with a new system several times larger, the cost being borne
by the District. Faced with a water-shortage again in 1944, the District constructed
a diversion from MacDonald Creek at a cost of $4,000. The sum of $3,600 is still owing
the Royal Bank on this loan.
To put the system in good shape and to provide adequate storage, the District estimates that it requires approximately $25,000 to $30,000.
4. Inability to Pay.—The District stresses the fact that it is now being asked to
pay its way in the future and at the same time pay for works not now in existence.
With the Penask water cut off, for two years there was no alternate supply, and, as a
result, trees and fruit were lost.    With the trees and fruit, it is claimed, went the Dis- DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 81
trict's power ever to repay its debt to the Conservation Fund. Moreover, this outstanding indebtedness on the books makes it difficult for the District to borrow elsewhere for
repairs. Even without paying anything into the Conservation Fund, the District will
have to raise the tax rates in order to finance the necessary renewals and extensions to
ensure a supply of water for the land.
Some of the older settlers testified as to their inability to pay higher charges.
One witness stated that he had originally owned 10 acres, but in the drought of 1929
7 acres reverted for non-payment of taxes. He now has 3 acres, the income from which
is supplemented by a pension from the Army. He pointed out that 2% acre-feet of
water was not sufficient, but the bare minimum with which to raise a crop. In 1944
the water-supply was exhausted by August 20th, and, as a result, a portion of the crop
was lost. In many cases growers are only able to put a furrow on one side of the
trees, where they should have two or three furrows. In 1929, according to his evidence,
nearly 60 per cent, of the Peachland people abandoned their land; very few could
afford to replant.
Another witness again stressed the shortage of water. He stated that the heat
on the side of the hill at Peachland dries up the land rapidly, so that 2% acre-feet
is not sufficient. In order to make that amount do, a grower must " be on the job
from 4 o'clock in the morning until 10 o'clock at night."
5. District Suggestions.—The Peachland District makes the following requests:—
(1.)  That the debt to the Conservation Fund be wiped out.
(2.)  That the Department help the District to obtain a substantial loan for
a twenty-year period, repayable in equal annual instalments.
(3.)  That irrigation matters be transferred from the Department of Lands
and Forests to the Department of Agriculture.
In addition, although they realize it might not come within the terms of reference
of this Commission, the Trustees wish to press their claim for the right to divert water
from Penask Creek.
Comments and Recommendations.
The shortage of water in this District appears to be the determining factor with
regard to ability to pay. Growers are paying very high rates per acre for water without getting a sufficient supply to enable them to produce the highest quantities.
The Trustees do not appear to be quite clear as to their standing with regard to
the Conservation Fund. They are apparently under the impression that they are
operating under the 1938 arrangement, and do not understand why their debt is
increasing. As explained in the foregoing, the District is not under the 1938 arrangement because the revenue obtained from the irrigated acreage does not exceed the
amount required for Renewal Reserve, leaving nothing to pay into the Conservation
Fund as a token payment.
Dr. W. H. Gaddes' report, prepared in 1929, states that the Peachland District
had kept up its payments until that date. It is noteworthy that 1929 was the year
when the Penask water was cut off from the District.
The significance of the following recommendations is that in my opinion the
entire indebtedness should be liquidated by token payments only.
I recommend:—
(1.) That the District be considered as having come within the 1938 arrangement and as having made a token payment of $1 each year since that
date.
(2.) That the token payment of $1 made annually since 1938 be considered as
full payment of the amount required annually under Order in Council
No. 751, 1933, and its amendment, Order in Council No. 974, 1936. AA 82 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
,(3.) That for the year 1946 and each year thereafter the District make
a token payment of $100, and that this amount be considered as full
payment of the amount required annually under Order in Council No. 751,
1933, and its amendment, Order in Council No. 974, 1936.
ROBSON IRRIGATION DISTRICT.
(Public Hearings held August 6th, 1946, at 10 a.m., in the Robson Hall, Robson.)
Summary of Data.
History and Description of the System.—The Robson Irrigation District was
incorporated under the " Water Act" in October, 1922.
This is a gravity system, constructed in 1923 with $20,000 borrowed from the
Conservation Fund and local debentures of $4,250. The system is entirely underground. Irrigation and domestic water are supplied through the same pipe-lines,
which are in use all the year round.
Present Condition.—Practically no renewals have been made since 1938, although
repairs have been taken care of from current revenue. The 3 miles of wood-stave pipe
constructed in 1923, with an estimated life of 25 years, are due for replacement very
soon. The District is faced with complete renewal of the line with larger pipe within
a few years.    Estimates for renewal of the pipe alone amount to $35,220.13.
Description of Area.—The Robson Irrigation District is located in the West
Kootenay area in the Columbia River valley, at the lower end of the Arrow Lakes,
about 20 miles from Trail. The climate is fair for fruit-growing. The soil varies
from clay to sandy loam, with gravel sab-soil, which allows rapid drainage. The combination of gravel sub-soil and the prevailing winds results in rapid evaporation of
the top-soil, making irrigation necessary.
Water-supply.—The water is taken from a dam on Pass Creek through about
3 miles of wood-stave pipe-line. Shortly after construction of the system it became
evident that this pipe-line was not large enough to carry sufficient water.
Irrigable Acreage.—The irrigable acreage, as calculated for the 1938 formula,
is 339.
Revenue-producing Acres.—There are at present 262.4 revenue-producing acres
in the District.
Number of Orchards.—There are approximately fifty orchards.
Conservation Fund Standing.—The following statement gives the Conservation
Fund standing of this  District with  regard to both  principal and  interest,  as at
March 15th,  1945:  Total Principal       Per Irrigated Acre
and Interest. (approximately).
Borrowed and accrued since 1923  $36,559.27 $139.00
Paid      18,125.81 69.00
Written off       9,511.55 37.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1945       8,921.91 33.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1946       8,585.15
1938 Arrangement.—This District is operating under the 1938 arrangement.
Under Order in Council No. 751, 1933, the outstanding indebtedness of the District
was reduced from $11,669.57 to $11,638.96, with an annual payment of $721. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION.
AA 83
The following tabulation shows the adjustments in annual payments and amounts
paid into the Renewal Reserve annually under the 1938 arrangement:—
Base Rate
per Acre.
Payments to Conservation Fund.
Year of Adjustment and Present Year.
Required by
O.C. 751, 974
(1933, 1936).
Accepted by
the 1938
Arrangement.
Renewal
Reserve.*
1939	
$5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
$721.00
721.00
721.00
721.00
721.00
721.00
$340.00
342.00
342.00
342.00
342.00
342.00
$970.00
1942	
948.00
1943	
1,500.00
1944	
970.00
1945	
1,500.00
1946	
970.00
* The Renewal Reserve was estimated over a period of fifteen years,
annually)  was paid into this account.
More than the required amount   ($970
The present standing of the Renewal Reserve Account is given below:—
Total payments as at March 15th, 1946  $11,540.62
Interest accruals         841.64
Total expended from Renewal Reserve as at March 15th,
1946 	
582.55
Balance which should be in the Renewal Reserve as at
March 15th, 1946     11,799.70
With regard to the 1938 arrangement, the District brief states:—
" The Robson Irrigation District has always understood that the Lougheed adjustment of 1933 as amended by the 1938 revision, which provided for the repayment of
the loan in thirty years, was to be final and permanent settlement, and apparently this
view is also held by other districts."
Irrigation Charges.—The following is a summary of irrigation charges levied by
the Robson Irrigation District:—
Tax per acre, 1946  $6.00 ■
Toll per acre  None
Total charge per acre, 1946     6.00
There have .been no special assessments in this District since 1938.
Domestic Water Rates.—Domestic water rates are as follows:—      perYear.
Domestic toll on the ranches  $18.00
Townsite toll for each house     24.00
Production.—Tree-fruits, mainly apples, are grown in this district. There are
also some cherries and apricots.    There is poultry on some of the farms.
Relative Productivity.—The productivity of this district is only fair, and for
purposes of comparison has been placed at 40. The farms are small, and many of them
are primarily residential. Many residents have obtained temporary or permanent
work elsewhere to supplement their incomes.
Relative Incomes.— (See Table 20.)
Special Factors to be considered.
1. Agreement with Doukhobors.—In 1923, when the Robson Irrigation District
put its pipe-line across Lot 237, the land was wild land owned by the Canadian Pacific
Railway, and the line was put across without obtaining an easement permitting the
District to cross this land. When Lot 237 was later sold to the Doukhobors, they sent
a crew to tap the dam (which was on Sub-lot 54, owned by the Robson Irrigation Dis- AA 84 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
trict), and the Robson Irrigation District took out an injunction against the Doukhobors, restraining them from taking water from this dam. The matter was settled
by an agreement, dated June 10th, 1930, between the Robson Irrigation District and
the Christian Community of Universal Brotherhood, Limited, of Brilliant, which gives
the Doukhobors the right to tap and use the concrete dam on Sub-lot 54 by entering
and passing through the dam with a 14-inch pipe, with the top of the pipe level with
the top of the present concrete. The agreement also included an easement across
Blocks 1 to 12 of Sub-lot 54. In consideration of this the Doukhobors agreed to maintain and repair the dam and all additions thereto, including the new wing-dam and
spillway and the works above the dam. The new wing-dam and spillway were to be
constructed by the Doukhobors. In addition, the Doukhobors gave the Robson Irrigation District an easement across Lot 237.
According to the evidence submitted, the Christian Community of Universal
Brotherhood, Limited, has done very little in assisting with repairs. The District has
had to finance most of the work that has been done. Exhibit 107 shows expenditures
on the dam by the District during the period 1931 to 1945, which total $1,146.87.
According to the evidence of the secretary of the Robson Irrigation District, the Doukhobors should have been responsible for approximately one-half of this expenditure.
2. The Domestic System.—The domestic system supplies all the domestic water
within the boundaries of the Robson Irrigation System. With an increasing number
of residents in the area, the District faces the problem of furnishing domestic water
to them from an already short supply.
Domestic and irrigation rates, for the most part, are paid by the same people.
3. Record of Payment.—The District brief points out that the Robson Irrigation
District has never defaulted in its payments as set by the Government, even though
meeting the payments meant neglecting renewals. It now feels that " keeping this
good name is an expensive policy and that some adjustments based on ' ability to pay '
are unfair and that better terms could have been obtained if the District had defaulted
for several years."
Local debentures borrowed in 1923, amounting to $4,250 have been repaid, and
the sum- of $18,125.81 has been paid back to the Government in principal and interest.
Though it went through hard times in the " depression " years, and taxes had to be
reduced, the payments to the Government were kept up.
4. Water-shortage.—The District brief indicates that the water-shortage in the
Robson Irrigation District has adversely affected production. The low production has
meant lower farm incomes, affecting the standard of living. Unless outside financial
assistance is received for renewal of the pipe-line and augmenting the water-supply,
it is claimed that production will not materially increase.
Comments and Recommendation.
The sizes of holdings in this District are very small. There are few full-time
orchardists. Some who have been orchardists for many years still find it necessary to
supplement their income by doing outside work. Others who are at present working in
Trail are settling in the Robson district on very small acreages—from 1 to 4 acres.
Their main work is at Trail, and what they have at Robson constitutes a home and
a side-line. It is very doubtful if the indebtedness could be paid from the land alone.
Under the 1938 arrangement the annual payment to the Conservation Fund amounts to
slightly less than the interest charges on the indebtedness in this District, and even
this is high for the District to pay and at the same time make provision for renewal
of the system.
The Renewal Reserve should be substantially increased.
I recommend that $100 be paid annually into the Conservation Fund, and that this
token payment be accepted as full payment for the annual amount due under Order
in Council No. 751, 1933, and its amendment, Order in Council No. 974, 1936. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 85
SCOTTY CREEK IRRIGATION DISTRICT.
(Public Hearings held July 26th, 1946, at 2 p.m., in the Court-house, Kelowna.)
Summary of Data.
History and Description of the System.—The Scotty Creek Irrigation District was
incorporated under the " Water Act" in March, 1944.
The system was originally constructed in 1918 under the Dyking and Drainage Act.
It is a gravity system, with distribution through a cement ditch and wood and cement
flumes.
Present Condition.—The concrete ditch, built at the inception of the District, was
not a success and is the cause of much loss of water through seepage. The District
desires to replace this ditch with a steel flume at an early date. No major replacement
works have been carried out in the past fifteen years. It is estimated that it would
take about $20,000 to put the works in satisfactory condition and to provide adequate
storage. The District has on hand about $6,500 and wishes to use this to renew the
main ditch.    The Trustees also wish to raise the Trapper Lake dam another 5 or 6 feet.
Description of Area.—This is an area of fair soil and about average conditions.
It is closely associated with the Black Mountain district. The trees and the area leave
the impression that the water-supply has been limited, and that good times and prosperous conditions have not always prevailed.
Water-supply.—Water is stored in the Orchard Meadows Dam, which holds about
800 acre-feet. It is brought down Scotty Creek and picked up by an intake before it
joins Mill Creek.
The District is very short of water. The system is inadequate to supply the total
taxed acreage, and few of the growers attempt to cultivate their entire irrigable
acreage.    The storage water sometimes peters out in August.
The average amount of water used is 21/_> to 3 acre-feet.
Irrigable Acreage.—The irrigable acreage, as calculated for the 1938 formula, is
1,127 acres.
Revenue-producing Acreage.—The revenue-producing acreage in 1945 was as follows :   Grade A, 762.69 acres;   Grade B, 100 acres.
Grade B is hay-land, which takes the water direct from the creek without making
use of the District ditch, and accordingly pays a lower tax than that paid by "A" land.
Number of Growers.—There are approximately nineteen growers in this District.
Conservation Fund Standing.—The following statement gives the Conservation
Fund standing of the District with regard to both Principal and Interest, as at March
15th,  1945 :  Total Principal       Per Irrigated Acre
and Interest. (approximately).
Borrowed and accrued since 1918  $77,980.78 $90.00
Paid  35,890.47 42.00
Written off or not charged  23,556.17 27.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1945  18,534.14 21.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1946  18,480.77           	
1938 Arrangement.—This District is now operating under the 1938 arrangement.
Under Order in Council No. 751 of 1933 the total indebtedness of the District was
reduced from $26,179.01, to $20,000, and the annual instalment was set at $1,240.
By the 1938 arrangement the District was requested to pay $881 in lieu of the
$1,240 referred to above. AA 86
THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
The following tabulation shows the adjustment in annual payment and the present
requirement:—
Base Rate
per Acre.
Payments to Conservation Fund.
Year of Adjustment and Present Year.
Required by
O.C. 751, 974
(1933, 1936).
Accepted by
the 1938
Arrangement.
Renewal
Reserve.
1939         	
$1.37
1.37
$1,240.00
1,240.00
$881.00
881.00
$300.00
1946         	
300.00
The standing of the Renewal Reserve Account is given below :-
Total payments as at March 15th, 1946	
Interest accruals	
$2,400.00
Total expended from Renewal Reserve as at March 15th,
1946         374.58
Balance which should be in Renewal Reserve as at March
15th, 1946      2,025.42
According to the brief, the Scotty Creek Irrigation District was under the impression that this 1938 arrangement was the final and permanent settlement of the irrigation question.
Irrigation Charges.—The following is a summary of irrigation charges levied by
the District:—
Combined tax and toll per acre, 1945:   "A" land, $4.74;   " B " land, $1.94.
This constitutes the total charge per acre. In this connection it should be noted
that because of the shortage of supply, most growers do not spread their water over
all the acreage on which they pay taxes. It is estimated that they actually water only
about one-half of the acreage. This would make their actual rate per producing acre
about twice as high as the rate indicated above.
There have been no special assessments since 1938.
There is no domestic water system maintained by the District.
Production.—Less than one-half the cultivated land is in orchards. The balance
is in hay and vegetables.
Relative Productivity.—In the opinion of Mr. Ben Hoy, District Field Inspector,
Provincial Department of Agriculture, the productivity of Scotty Creek is less than that
of Glenmore, South-east Kelowna, Black Mountain, or Westbank.
In the northern area, which includes Scotty Creek, it is more difficult to grow
winter varieties of apples than it is to grow them in the Southern Okanagan. Peaches
and apricots grown in the northern districts come in later and therefore do not have
so good a choice of markets. Scotty Creek must grow early varieties, and these come
onto the market at the same time as the better-quality mid-season varieties in the South.
For purposes of comparison, I have placed the productivity of this district at 60.
Relative Incomes.—It was not possible to segregate this District with regard to
gross incomes.    The Scotty Creek growers are included in the Kelowna table, No. 16.
Special Factors to be considered.—The District secretary states that much loss of
water has been occasioned in the past through trying to stretch the supply too far,
resulting in loss of crops. He states that there is some of the best land and the finest
soil in the country in the Scotty Creek district, but that the lack of water has given
it an unenviable reputation for crop-failures.
The District hopes that some additional water may be obtained from Mission Creek
through the Black Mountain system, if that system can enlarge its laterals. This is
the only apparent source from which a plentiful supply could be obtained. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 87
There are hundreds of acres of good land in and around the district which have
no water rights, according to the evidence submitted. It is estimated that within the
Ellison Polling Division there are 2,000 acres which have no water rights, and about
half of these would naturally come within the boundaries of the Scotty Creek District.
Included in these lands is the Christian Ranch, owned by the Provincial Government.
It is pointed out that the cost of irrigation is increased through having to carry water
past the dry lands to the irrigated lands beyond. The District claims that if funds
were available for expansion of the Black Mountain laterals, sufficient water could be
obtained from Mission Creek to irrigate every acre of this land. The contention is
that the soil on the dry lands is good, some of it better than that on the land now
irrigated.
Request for Assistance.—During the past few years the growers have taxed themselves extra to provide a reserve to carry on renewals, over and above that required of
them under the 1938 arrangement. They now have on hand some $6,500 for this
purpose. In 1945, due to the far more rapid deterioration of the system than was
anticipated, and the greater expenditure required, the District requested the Government to remit its payment to the Conservation Fund over a period of five years in order
to increase the Renewal Reserve.
The District has also requested permission to use all or part of the Renewal Reserve
for improvements or extensions.
Comments and Recommendations.
The main problem in this District would appear to be the shortage of water. It is
significant that growers attempt to make best use of the water available by irrigating
only about half the acreage on which they pay the regular irrigation tax. It is claimed
that this brings their actual cost of irrigation close to $9.50 per producing acre, rather
than the $4.74 as shown in the per acre charge.
In my opinion this District has made a good attempt to produce and to pay, even
though working under a condition of very limited water-supply. Without additional
water I do not see how they can produce more and pay more. The annual payment to
the Conservation Fund has been made at the expense of the system and of the Renewal
Reserve. The system has deteriorated badly, and production is at a low level. The
future of the District lies in improving production.
I recommend that the taxes and tolls be maintained at the present level or be
increased if possible, and that special attention be given to obtaining and delivering
an adequate supply of water. I also recommend that $300 be paid annually into the
Conservation Fund, and that this amount be accepted for the full annual payment
required under Order in Council No. 751, 1933, and its amendment, Order in Council
No. 974, 1936.
SOUTH-EAST KELOWNA DISTRICT.
(Public Hearings held July 26th, 1946, at 9.30 a.m., in the Court-house, Kelowna.)
Summary of Data.
History and Description of the System.—The South-east Kelowna Irrigation District was incorporated under the " Water Act " in November, 1920.
The system was acquired from a private land company which had failed to maintain
the water service.
It is a gravity system, originally intended to supply water to 4,600 acres, but 2,000
of these were relatively poor land. Within two years the acreage was reduced to 2,400.
As a result, the system is widely extended for the total acreage irrigated. Present Condition.—The system is in fair physical condition, with the exception
of a number of weak points where trouble may develop at any moment. In addition to
the annual Renewal Reserve of $4,850, the District anticipates a cost of $3,000 per
annum for the next five years, for the replacement of the Mission Creek system, which
was washed away in a slide.
The District feels that it must investigate the possibility of conserving more water.
It is trying to make replacements with " long life " structures, and cannot see any
possibility of reducing expenses for ten years at least.
Description of Area.—The soil in this district requires more water than is needed
by the soil in some of the other districts under review. The sub-soil in many places is
rock and gravel.    Water could be saved by the use of sprinklers.
Water-supply.—The main reservoir is McCulloch Lake, but water is also stored at
No. 9 dam in Haines Lake and in some smaller lakes. The storage capacity is around
12,000 acre-feet. An additional 2,000 acre-feet can be obtained by pumping out of
Haines Lake. Natural-flow water is also obtained from Mission Creek. The amount
now supplied is about 3 to 3% acre-feet.
Irrigable Acreage.—In 1920, at date of incorporation, the irrigable acreage was
4,600.    In 1938 it was set at 4,076 acres.
Revenue-producing Acreage.—In 1938 the revenue-producing acreage was 2,275;
in 1942 it was 2,533;  and in 1945 it was 2,475 acres (Grade A, irrigated).
Number of Growers.—There are approximately 113 growers.
Tax Sales.—Tax sales for non-payment of irrigation charges have been held
annually since 1921, but in most cases the lands have been redeemed by the owners.
Conservation Fund Standing.—The following statement gives the Conservation
Fund standing of this District with regard to both principal and interest, as at March
15th, 1945 :  Total Principal       Per Irrigated Acre
and Interest. (approximately).
Borrowed and accrued since 1920  $824,873.94 $323.00
Paid      196,780.85 77.00
Written off or not charged    440,725.96 169.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1945     197,367.13 77.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1946     193,519.89 	
1938 Arrangement.—By Order in Council No. 751, 1933, the total indebtedness of
the District was reduced from $437,520.87 to $200,000, with an annual repayment of
$12,400. The District proved unable to meet its annual repayments, and twice had to
ask that these be switched to the end of the thirty-year period for the amortization of
the debt.
It is now operating under the 1938 arrangement. Under this arrangement the
District was to set aside annually the sum of $4,250 for Renewal Reserve. In October,
1942, a further adjustment was made to allow for replacement of the Mission Creek
flume, which had been lost in a slide. By this adjustment the Renewal Reserve was
increased from $4,250 to $4,850, provided not less than $6,000 was paid annually into
the Conservation Fund. Upon making this minimum token payment of $6,000, the
District could be credited with the annual instalment of $12,400 required by Orders in
Council No. 751 and No. 974. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION.
AA 89
The following tabulation  shows the  adjustments  in  annual  payments and the
present requirements:—
Base Rate
per Acre.
Payments to Conservation Fund.
Year of Adjustment and Present Year.
Required by
O.C. 751, 974
(1933, 1936).
Accepted by
the 1938
Arrangement.
Renewal
Reserve.
1939	
$4.08
4.23
4.23
$12,400.00
12,400.00
12,400.00
$6,013.00
6,000.00
6,000.00
$4,250.00
1943	
4,850.00
1946	
4,850.00
The standing of the Renewal Reserve Account is given below:—
Total payments as at March 15th, 1946  $36,400.00
Interest accruals  68.93
Total expended from Renewal Reserve as at March 15th,
1946     34,580.45
Amount which should be in Renewal Reserve as at March
15th, 1946       1,888.48
In addition to provision for Conservation Fund payment and Renewal Reserve, on
an average the sum of $16,308.28 is provided annually by this District for administration, operation, maintenance, and other incidental expenses.
The District brief states that at the time the 1938 arrangement was introduced,
the District was definitely given to understand that it was to be final as between the
Department of Lands and the South-east Kelowna Irrigation District. In support of
this it is pointed out that the Renewal schedules cover a period of thirty years—the
time required for amortization of the debt. The brief also states that Captain C. R.
Bull, who was member of the Legislative Assembly for the South Okanagan at the time,
is emphatic in his support of this point of view. The District is well satisfied with the
1938 arrangement, and states as follows: " We believe we can continue to live under
this arrangement, and strongly urge that it be confirmed and continued."
Irrigation and Domestic Water Charges.—The following is a summary of irrigation and domestic water charges levied by the South-east Kelowna Irrigation District:—
Tax per acre, 1945 _'  $10.70
Average toll per acre, 1945      2.76
Total irrigation charges per acre, 1945.
$13.46
The domestic and irrigation systems are interlocked; the domestic system could
not maintain itself separately. The District's obligation for the domestic water system
equals approximately $3.20 per acre. It levies a tax of $1 per acre on all Grade A lands
that receive domestic water and on Grade C lands that receive domestic water only.
A minimum charge of $5 is set for those Grade C properties that are less than 5 acres.
In addition to the Grade C tax, there is a quarterly charge of $13.50 for each connection
less 20 per cent, discount, or $10.80 net.
In 1942 there was a special assessment of $1 per acre on Grade C land to cover
repairs necessitated by extensive flood damage to the domestic system in Canyon Creek.
Production.—All of the tree-fruits are grown in this district, but apples predominate. There are few very young orchards, and the district is rapidly approaching its
maximum production.
The average size of the individual holding is about 20 acres.
Relative Productivity.—This is a high-producing area—the highest of the districts
named in the terms of reference.    For purposes of comparison I have rated it at 100. AA 90 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
Relative Incomes.—South-east Kelowna growers are included in the Kelowna table
of incomes, No. 16.
Special Factors.—In this district, 55 farms out of a total of 108 have changed
ownership since 1939, at high prices. The evidence indicates that while a few growers
of long-time experience have purchased additional acreage, for the most part growers
of long experience have offered their farms for sale. Some of this property has sold
at as high as $1,500 per acre.
Comments and Recommendation.
The sum now being paid annually into the Conservation Fund under the 1938
arrangement is $6,000. This, in my opinion, is reasonable, and the District should be
able to continue to pay it, except in cases of catastrophe and extreme emergency.
I recommend that $6,000 be paid annually into the Conservation Fund, and that
this amount be accepted for the full annual payment required under Order in Council
No. 751, 1933, and its amendment, Order in Council No. 974, 1936.
VERNON IRRIGATION DISTRICT.
(Public Hearings held July 19th, 1946, at 1.30 p.m., in the City Hall, and
July 20th, at 9.30 a.m., in the Scout Hall, Vernon.)
Summary of Data.
History and Description of the System.—The Vernon Irrigation District was
incorporated under the " Water Act " in December, 1920.
This is a gravity system, originally constructed by the White Valley Irrigation &
Power Company and the Coldstream Estate Company. The Government had advanced
to the White Valley Company $185,817.03 towards reconstruction, but the system was
still in bad shape. Extensive repairs and additions were immediately necessary.
To purchase the system and take over its liabilities cost the District $403,481.03;
repairs by 1924 totalled $315,643.97, making the total cost to the District $719,125.
Present Condition.—Parts of the distribution system are 38 years old. Immediate
attention is being given to the most fragile structures. In the opinion of the manager
it would be desirable to expend $35,000 to $40,000 each year for the next ten years in
improvements, replacements, and possibly some enlargements. The main canal should
be lined with concrete blocks to prevent seepage. It might also be desirable to raise
Haddo Dam.
Description of Area.-—This is a non-uniform, sprawling district, extending from
Okanagan Lake to the marginal area to the north. Some orchards are in excellent
shape and are producing heavily; others are not so good. The area is heavily planted
to vegetables for shipment and for processing.
Water-supply.—Water is stored in Aberdeen Lake, Haddo Lake, King Edward
Lake, Goose Lake, Fish Lake, and Summit Lake, which have a total capacity of 15,750
acre-feet. The District has delivered an average of 7,700 acre-feet of storage water
per year for the past ten years.
One-quarter of the water released from Aberdeen and Haddo reservoirs is lost on
the way to the headgates, and 35 per cent, is lost in distribution.
Under the present condition of the system there is not sufficient water to supply
additional acreage.
Approximately 2% acre-feet of water are delivered by the District during the
season.
Irrigable Acreage.—The irrigable acreage in 1920 was estimated at 14,000; it is
now 12,301 acres, as set in the 1938 formula. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION.
AA 91
Revenue-producing Acreage.—The revenue-producing acreage has decreased as
follows:   1938, 8,600 acres;   1946, 7,710.68 acres.
Number of Growers.—There are approximately 500 land-owners in the district, of
whom 365 receive water service.
Tax Sales.—Very little land has been up for tax sale since 1941. One small parcel
of land was sold for taxes in 1945.
Conservation Fund Standing.—The following statement gives the Conservation
Fund standing of this District with regard to both Principal and Interest, as at
March 15th, 1945:—• Total Principal      Per Irrigated Acre
and Interest. (approximately).
Borrowed and accrued since 1920  $1,792,381.02 $249.00
Paid         417,628.56 58.00
Written off or not charged 1       899,515.74 125.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1945        475,236.72 66.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1946        471,947.71 	
1938 Arrangement.—This District is operating under the 1938 arrangement, with
a special adjustment.
Under Order in Council No. 751 of 1933 the outstanding indebtedness of the
District was reduced from $887,085.96 to $435,000, the annual instalment being $27,103.
By the 1938 arrangement the irrigable acreage was set at 12,301 and the Renewal
Reserve at $26,827 (estimated over a five-year period), giving a base rate of $4.38 per
acre. With the revenue-producing acreage then at 8,600 acres, the payment to the
Conservation Fund would have amounted to $10,841.
Through a special concession made December 20th, 1938, the District was only
required to pay to the Conservation Fund an annual instalment of $3,575 plus $2.50
per acre for the revenue-producing acreage in excess of 8,000. Should the revenue-
producing acreage drop below 7,000, the regular 1938 formula, with a base rate of
$4.38 per acre, would again apply.
The following tabulation shows the adjustments in annual payment and the
present requirement:—
Base Rate
per Acre.
Payments to Conservation Fund.
Year of Adjustment and Present Year.
Required by
O.C 751, 974
(1933, 1936).
Accepted by
the 1938
Arrangement.
Renewal
Reserve.
1939               	
$4.38*
4.38*
$27,103.00
27,103.00
$3,575 plus
$2.50 per acre
over 8,000 =
$5,341.42
$3,575
$26,827.00
$26,827.00
* Base rate calculated but not used because of the special adjustment.
Under this arrangement the amount to be set aside for Renewal Reserve annually,
$26,827, was not put into a special fund, as it was immediately needed for renewals.
During the period March 16th, 1938, to December 31st, 1945, a total of $212,135.01 was
actually expended on the works.
The District is anxious to have the special terms granted in 1938 continued for
the future.
With regard to the permanency of the 1938 arrangement the brief states that the
Minister of Lands gave the Trustees the following assurance at that time:—
" That the Government would never attempt to collect the balance owing to the
Conservation Fund by the Vernon Irrigation District, provided the District lived up AA 92 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
to the 1938 agreement; that it would require a token payment each year only; but that
the indebtedness would not be cancelled but would be used as a club to hold over our
heads to ensure proper maintenance and improvement of the system."
Irrigation Charges.—The following is a summary of irrigation charges levied by
the Vernon Irrigation District:—
Tax per acre, 1945—
" A " lands   $1.00
" B " lands      2.00
Average toll per acre, 1945     6.20
Consolidated and Funded Taxes.—Arrears of taxes owing for 1927-32 were consolidated and made payable to the District over a fifteen-year period; taxes owing for
1936-37 were funded over a ten-year period at 6 per cent, and made payable to
the District.
A total of 1,317 acres pay consolidated, funded, and current taxes, totalling $5.33
per acre;   2,378 acres pay funded and current taxes, totalling $3.47 per acre.
Total charges per acre, 1945: $14.45 per acre (maximum), $6.50 per acre
(minimum).
There have been no special assessments since 1938.
No domestic water is supplied by the Vernon Irrigation District.
Production.—There are approximately 7,600 acres of Grade A land, divided up
somewhat as follows: Fruit, 3,200 acres; vegetables, 2,620 acres; hay and grain,
1,780 acres. Of the fruit, approximately 10 per cent, would be soft fruit. Of the
apple-trees, it is estimated that about 50 per cent, are in full production.
Acreage in fruit is not likely to increase greatly. The acreage in vegetables may
increase.
Relative Productivity.—In the opinion of Mr. Morrice Middleton, District Horticulturist of the Department of Agriculture, Mcintosh apples are the most remunerative
here. The Vernon district cannot grow Winesaps or Yellow Newtowns except in very
limited sections; therefore it is not in such a favourable position as are districts
farther south. This is borne out also by the opinion of Mr. H. J. H. Evans, District
Field Inspector, to the effect that the Vernon district is not suited to the production of
the best winter varieties, but is restricted to lower-priced varieties such as Mcintosh,
Wealthy, Duchess, Grimes Golden, and crab-apples. In the opinion of Mr. Ben Hoy,
Vernon has some of the best soil in the Okanagan, but is at a disadvantage with regard
to crops and varieties that can be grown that far north.
I have placed the relative productivity at 70. (Some sections of this district could
be rated much above 70, and others much lower.    There is great variation.)
Relative Incomes.— (See Table 21.)
Special Factors to be considered.
1. High Cost of Original System.—The District feels that holders of the debentures on the original system were protected at the expense of the water-users. The cost
of the system, plus liabilities to the Government for repairs already made, plus necessary expenditures on additional repairs, amounted to $719,125. By 1933 interest on
this amounted to approximately $340,000. The " Lougheed Settlement" reduced the
total debt from $887,085.96 to $435,000 (Government figures). In 1945, after years
of effort in improving the works, the value of the system properties as shown on the
auditors' statements is $521,012.50. The brief comments that it would appear that
the land-owners made a very poor bargain for themselves in 1920. In addition, the
land companies were only liable for taxes when unable to rent their lands, thus throwing the burden on the individual farmers who worked their holdings and were responsible for both taxes and tolls. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 93
2. Reduced Acreage of Irrigated Land.—In 1938 the irrigated area totalled 8,600
acres. In 1946 it was down to 7,700 acres. This decrease is spread throughout the
district for the most part, and the full maintenance cost of laterals must be carried by
the reduced acreage, thus increasing the capital debt per irrigated acre.
When the District was formed, it was believed that 14,000 acres could be irrigated,
and that total charges, including taxes and tolls, would be about $5 an acre. In 1927
the total charge was as high as $8.70. Moratoriums and reductions of the total
indebtedness had to be granted because of the growers' inability to pay the higher
charges necessitated by reduced acreage.
3. Vegetable and Hay Lands.—The fact that a large portion of the irrigated acreage in this district is devoted to vegetables and hay and grain production constitutes
a special problem. If hay and grain lands are asked to pay higher rates, they will be
forced out of irrigation and leave the orchards with an added burden.
A statement from Bulman's, Limited, a food-processing plant in Vernon which
uses fruits and vegetables produced locally to the value of about $395,000 per year,
indicates that it is essential to them that production costs become more settled.
A brief from the Coldstream Ranch states that even at present rates of taxation
it is not economical to use irrigation-water in the growing of grain or hay, and that
if rates on these lands are raised, the lands will be withdrawn from the irrigation
district. After the 1938 arrangement was made, the Trustees instituted a policy of
low taxes and high tolls to enable the hay and grain lands to use a small quantity of
flood-water at a low cost, and so to remain in Grade A and assist the balance of the
District by the payment'of a low tax. It was also thought that such a policy would
enable the hay and grain lands to use some irrigation-water to produce vegetables
when the demand so warranted.
4. Seepage.—Seepage constitutes a grave problem in this District. For twenty
years 102 acres of land have been taxed $1 per acre higher than Grade A lands, on the
grounds that they cause seepage to lands below. The District is threatened with
lawsuits for damages caused by seepage and, to avoid these, must line the main canal
with concrete blocks. About 45 per cent of the water stored in the dams is lost in
the process of delivery. There are 39,600 feet of the canal lined, or partly lined, and
187,580 feet still to be lined with concrete.    This represents an important expenditure.
5. Rising Costs, Fluctuating Markets.—The District brief also points out that
while farmers to-day are obtaining good prices for their produce, the cost of materials
and services is steadily increasing. Labour is demanding higher wages and shorter
hours.
It is now estimated that because of rising costs of labour and materials, and the
general force of circumstances, it will be necessary for the District to increase its
budget from $51,000 to $78,000.
6. Codling-moth.—Until 1926 the Government sprayed the orchards to eradicate
codling-moth. When the infestations became heavier, the Government stopped giving
this assistance, and it became the growers' responsibility. They now put on about
six or seven sprays a year. This represents a cost the growers did not have to bear
twenty years ago.
7. Land Sales.—A great many land sales are taking place in this district. Most of
these are old existing parcels of land, but also many new parcels are being created by
subdivision.
8. Condition of Orchards.—This district claims that it pioneered fruit-growing in
the Okanagan, and has not yet recovered from the effects of early mistakes in varieties
planted. Its orchards are already old and in need of replanting to the extent of
one-third. AA 94 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
9. Gaddes' Report.—In 1929 Dr. W. H. Gaddes, in his report on the Vernon
District, wrote as follows:—
" This is the largest District, has the most varied classification of land and
products. Without the remittance of the Government obligation I do not think it can
survive, and with this relief the Trustees will have a difficult but not hopeless task."
Under the relief afforded by the " Lougheed Settlement " of 1933, and the special
adjustment of 1938, the District has been able to carry on.
Comments and Recommendation.
The District is anxious to have the terms of the 1938 arrangement continued, and
I believe that this request is reasonable and fair. I doubt very much the ability of
the District to pay any additional sum to the Conservation Fund. For the past year
$3,575 was paid.
I recommend that $3,575 be paid annually into the Conservation Fund, and that
this amount be accepted for the full annual payment required under Order in Council
No. 751, 1933, and its amendment, Order in Council No. 974, 1936.
WESTBANK IRRIGATION DISTRICT.
(Public Hearings held July 30th, 1946, at 2.30 p.m., in the Community Hall, Westbank.)
Summary of Data.
History and Description of the System.—The Westbank Irrigation District was
incorporated under the " Water Act " June, 1922.
This is a gravity system, originally constructed by a Mr. D'Eath in 1907 and
developed by him and his associates. For the nominal sum of $1 the District took
over this system in 1922 and borrowed from the Government to build a new main
flume and new dams.    Distribution is effected mostly by metal flumes and pipe-lines.
Present Condition.—Part of the system is not in a safe condition, and it needs
constant watching.    Renewal costs are going to be heavy.
Description of Area.—The area is relatively compact, and the orchards are well
cared for. Seepage has caused loss in a few places. The soil is variable, but as a
whole is reasonably good.
Water-supply.—Water is stored in Horseshoe and the two adjoining lakes, in
Dobbin Lake, Paynter Lake, and Bear Lake, with a total capacity of about 1,300 acre-
feet.
The average amount of water supplied in a season is 4 acre-feet, including flood-
water.
Irrigable Acreage.—The irrigable acreage, as calculated for the 1938 formula
is 701.
Revenue-producing Acreage.—The revenue-producing acreage has increased as
follows: 1938, 613 acres; 1942, 628.06 acres; 1946, 698 acres ("A" land, 680 acres,
and " B " land, 18 acres).
Irrigated Acreage.—The irrigated acreage in 1946 was 628 acres.
Number of Growers.—There are approximately fifty-eight growers in this District.
Tax Sales.—Many lands reverted to the District in 1928 for non-payment of taxes.
None have reverted since 1935. In 1945 there was a demand for the reverted lands,
and they were sold at about $50 an acre.
Conservation Fund Standing.—The following statement gives the Conservation
Fund standing of this District with regard to both Principal and Interest, as at March
15th, 1945:— DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION.
AA 95
Total Principal       Per Irrigated Acre
and Interest. (approximately).
Borrowed and accrued since 1922   $86,662.54 $134.00
Paid     23,051.90 36.00
Written off     44,718.75 69.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1945     18,891.89 29.00
Owing as at March 28th, 1946     18,138.20 	
1938 Arrangement.—The District is operating under the 1938 arrangement.
By Order in Council No. 751 of 1933 the outstanding indebtedness was reduced
from $50,020.03 to $20,000, with the annual repayment set at $1,240.
Under the 1938 arrangement the District was instructed to set aside a Renewal
Reserve of $2,470 annually, which gave a base rate of $5.29 per acre and a payment to
the Conservation Fund of $773, calculated on an irrigable acreage of 701 and a revenue-
producing acreage of 613. In 1942 the Renewal Reserve was increased to $2,739,
giving a base rate of $5.68 and a payment to the Conservation Fund of $828.38. This
is the arrangement under which the District is operating at the present time.
The following tabulation shows the adjustments in annual payment and the
present requirement:—
Base Rate
per Acre.
Payments to Conservation Fund.
Renewal
Reserve.
Year of Adjustment and Present Year.
Required by
O.C. 751. 974
(1933, 1936).
Accepted by
the 1938
Arrangement.
1939!	
$5.29
5.68
5.68
$1,240.00                   $773.00
1,240.00                      828.38
1.240.00                      835.00
$2,470.00
2,739.00
2,739.00
1942	
1946                                            	
|
The standing of the Renewal Reserve Account is given below:
Total payments as at March 16th, 1946	
Interest accruals 	
Total expended from Renewal Reserve as at March 15th,
1946 	
Balance which should be in the Renewal Reserve as at
March 15th, 1946	
$21,105.00
946.61
11,838.93
10,212.68
The Westbank Irrigation District states that it was under the impression that
the 1938 arrangement was permanent so long as the District lived up to it.
Irrigation Charges.—The following is a summary of irrigation charges levied by
the Westbank Irrigation District:-—
Tax per acre, 1946—
" A " land      $5.90
" B " land        2.95
Tolls per acre—
1939        3.00
1945        4.00
1946, less 10 per cent.       7.00
Total charges per acre (" A " land)     12.90
There have been no special assessments in this District since 1938.
Domestic water is not supplied by the District. Users of domestic water pay the
outside distributors $1 per month.
Production.—Apples, cherries, and a few peaches are produced in this area.
There is also a limited amount of vegetables grown here. AA 96 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
Relative Productivity.—In the opinion of Mr. Ben Hoy, District Field Inspector of
the Provincial Department of Agriculture, Westbank is less productive than Glenmore,
South-east Kelowna, or Black Mountain.
For purposes of comparison, I have placed the relative productivity at 80.
It is expected that conditions will improve considerably in this district.
Relative Incomes.— (See Table 22.)
Special Factors to be considered.
1. Additional " A " Lands.—The evidence indicates that there are about 100 acres
of " A " land in the District which are not receiving water at this time. The " A "
land has increased since 1938 from 613 acres to 680 acres, and this year the District
had to turn down an application to take in more " A " land because the flume was not
big enough to supply sufficient water.
2. Taxes and Tolls.—The tolls .per acre have increased since 1945 from $4 with
no discount to $7 with a 10 per cent, discount, or a net of $6.30, in 1946. The tax rate
is $5.90 on " A " land.
One witness testified that his experience showed the land could not stand charges
higher than $8.50 per acre over a period of years. He pointed out that the increased
returns of the past few years merely gave the grower an opportunity to renew his
equipment and machinery, which were neglected during the depression period, and that
provision must be made for recurring periods of depression.
3. District Request.—The Westbank Irrigation District would like permission to
use the amount now available in Renewal Reserve to pay its debt to the Conservation
Fund on the basis of 50 cents on the dollar. This would use up $9,272.40 of the
Reserve, leaving a small balance for renewals. The District would keep up its tax levy
for renewals. Based on a 1946 estimate, contemplated renewals for the next ten years
total $50,564.
Comments and Recommendation.
While this District is not wealthy, it is in good financial condition as a whole and
is growing in prosperity. During recent years it has paid varying amounts into the
Conservation Fund, and with increasing acreage under water, I believe it can continue
to make payments.
I recommend that $835 be paid annually into the Conservation Fund, and that this
amount be accepted for the full annual payment required under Order in Council No.
751, 1933, and its amendment, Order in Council No. 974, 1936.
WINFIELD  AND  OKANAGAN  CENTRE   IRRIGATION  DISTRICT.
(Public Hearings held on July 19th, 1946, at 10 a.m., in City Hall, Vernon, and July
29th, 1946, at 3 p.m., in Community Hall, Rutland.)
Summary of Data.
History and Description of the System.—The Winfield and Okanagan Centre
Irrigation District was incorporated under the " Water Act" in May, 1930.
The system is operated by the Okanagan Centre Irrigation & Power Co., Ltd. It
is a gravity system, originally constructed by Maddock Bros, about 1909. It includes
a dam and intake on Vernon Creek out "of Beaver Lake, a balancing-reservoir at
Okanagan Centre, and about 157,337 feet of water-lines, including 4,525 feet for
domestic water-supply.
In order to supplement and conserve the water that the company is expected to
deliver, the District borrowed $13,000 from the Conservation Fund in 1931 to build
Crooked Lake dam and a flume known as the " by-pass." In 1944 the District spent
$10,000 in helping to rebuild Beaver Lake dam. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION.
AA 97
Present Condition.—The system is not in good condition. According to the report
on " Appraisal of Property and Investigation of Operations of the Okanagan Centre
Irrigation & Power Co., Ltd., to May 1, 1944," made by the Public Utilities Commission,
about $150,000 will be required for replacements during the period 1944 to 1949. The
company stated that in 1944 and 1945 it spent a total of $74,000 on the new dam,
renewals, and replacements.
The system is now carrying water to its full capacity. The report referred to
above indicated that interruptions in service would be reduced if pipe-lines were
renewed where they have exceeded the normal life-span.
Description of Area.—This is a relatively compact area, on loam and sand soil.
It is rolling, but not hilly.
Water-supply.—Water is stored in the Beaver Lake chain of lakes, which has a
total capacity of 10,000 acre-feet.
The original agreement between the company and the land-owners called for
delivery of 1 foot per acre per season. At present about 20 per cent, of the acreage
receives 1 acre-foot, 50 per cent, receives 1% acre-feet, and 30 per cent, receives 2
acre-feet per season.
Irrigable Acreage.—The irrigable acreage in this district is 2,050 acres.
Revenue-producing Acreage.—The revenue-producing acreage in 1946 is 1,901
acres.
Irrigated Acreage.—The irrigated acreage in 1946 is 1,835.25 acres.
Number of Growers.—There are 127 irrigation-water users in the District, of
whom 112 are growers.
Conservation Fund Standing.—The following statement gives the Conservation
Fund standing of this District with regard to both principal and interest, as at March
15th, 1945:—
Total Principal
and Interest.
  $21,081.81
       7,430.11
  255.40
Owing as at March 15th, 1945 __            13,396.30
Owing as at March 15th, 1946     13,999.13*
Borrowed and accrued since 1930
Paid 	
Written off 	
Per Irrigated Acre
(approximately).
$11.00
4.00
7.00
* The debt is increasing because this District has not made any payments since 1941.
1938 Arrangement.—Under Order in Council No. 751 of 1933 the outstanding
indebtedness of this District was reduced from $12,585.22 to $12,533.82. The annual
repayment was set at $777.
By the 1938 arrangement the District was requested to pay to the Conservation
Fund an annual sum of $709 in lieu of the $777 required by Order in Council No. 751.
Although the Winfield and Okanagan Centre District does not operate the distribution system, it has constructed a dam to store water. Accordingly, the 1938 arrangement made provision for a Renewal Reserve of $200 annually, for the replacement of
the gates in the dam.
The following tabulation shows the adjustment in annual payment and the actual
payments made under the 1938 arrangement:—
Base Rate
per Acre.
Payments to Conservation Fund.
Year of Adjustment and Present Year.
Required bv
O.C. 751. 974
(1933, 1936).
Accepted by
the 1938
Arrangement.
Renewal
Reserve.
$0.48
.4R
.48
$777.00                     $709.00
777.00                         709.00
777.00                       709.00
$200.00
200.00
200.00 AA 98 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
As previously noted, the District has not made any payments since 1941.
Irrigation Charges.—The following is a summary of irrigation charges levied by
the Okanagan Centre Irrigation & Power Co., Ltd., and by the Winfield and Okanagan
Centre Irrigation District:—
Company:   1946—$10 per acre-foot of water;   on the basis of delivery of 1%
acre-feet of water, average charge per acre is $15.
District: The usual District tax is $1 per acre. This is levied to cover repayment of the money borrowed from the Conservation Fund for the construction of Crooked Lake dam. In 1944 the tax was increased to $5 per
acre to cover half the cost of Beaver Lake dam. As this was not sufficient
to pay off the debt in one year, the rate for 1945 was set at $2 per acre.
The 1945 tax is payable in 1946.
Total average charges payable in 1946— Per Acre.
Company toll for 1946  $15.00
District tax for 1945       2.00
$17.00
Domestic Water Rates.—The company charges $6 per quarter ($24 per year) less
10 per cent discount for domestic water. There are approximately 150 domestic-water
users. They are permitted to water up to % acre of garden at the above-mentioned
rate.
Production.—Apples are the main crop, but some of the other tree-fruits also are
grown.
Relative Productivity.—According to Mr. Ben Hoy, District Field Inspector of the
Provincial Department of Agriculture, in a small part of Okanagan Centre down near
the lake, it is possible to grow the winter varieties of apples better than they can be
grown at Vernon.
For purposes of comparison, I have placed the relative productivity of this District
at 80.
Relative Incomes.— (See Table 23.)
Special Factors to be considered.
1. Ownership of System.—According to the District brief, the major problem in
this area is the ownership, maintenance, and continuity of the distribution system.
At the present time the Okanagan Centre Irrigation & Power Co., Ltd., and its
parent company, the Okanagan Valley Land Co., Ltd., own the intake on Vernon Creek,
the pipe-line, a half-interest in the dam and rock-cut at Beaver Lake, and leasehold
rights and easements over the water-line from Beaver Lake. Under its agreement
with the water-users the company obtains the right-of-way for pipe-lines over users'
property. The company does not own the water; it may be regarded as a carrier.
It is obligated to deliver 1 acre-foot of water per season, and actually delivers about
1% acre-feet of water.
The District owns a half-interest in Beaver Lake dam and a full interest in Crooked
Lake dam and a flume known as the " by-pass." The District is of opinion that the
amounts expended by it in acquiring these interests—$13,000 in 1931 and $10,000 in
1944—were only necessitated by the company's failure to provide adequate storage.
Similarly, an amount of $30,000 obtained by the company in 1945 to finance the emergency renewal of an important section of pipe-line close to Beaver Dam was only secured
through the District backing the bonds and making upon its water-users an additional
charge per acre-foot. The District believes that such a charge would not have fallen
upon it had the Company been able to provide suitably for replacements.    In effect, it DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 99
claims that the District is paying piecemeal, through financing storage and replacements, for a system which it does not own.
Requirements for renewals and replacements are expected to be heavy for some
time to come. In 1944 the Public Utilities Commission estimated that approximately
$150,000 would be required for renewals and replacements over the next five years.
The company offered to sell all its rights in the system to the district in 1944 for
the sum of $75,000, but in view of the estimated $150,000 required for repairs, the
District did not find itself in a position to accept this offer. It was in that same year
that the District spent $10,000 in helping to rebuild the dam at Beaver Lake and was
obliged to assess its members $5 per acre to cover the cost.
2. Okanagan Valley Land Co., Ltd.—The Okanagan Valley Land Co., Ltd., the
parent company of the Okanagan Centre Irrigation & Power Co., Ltd., owns 291 acres
of orchard in the District and pays the same irrigation charges as are paid by the other
water-users. According to the evidence, the Okanagan Valley Land Co. does not feel
that the water charges are exorbitant at present, but thinks that they might be onerous
in depression periods.
3. Increase in Charges.—In 1943 the Okanagan Centre Irrigation & Power Co.,
Ltd., applied to the Public Utilities Commission for the right to increase its water rate,
and was granted permission to raise it from $6 to $8 per acre-foot. When it became
necessary in 1945 to renovate a portion of the main line from the intake at a cost of
approximately $25,000, the company made further application to the Public Utilities
Commission, and was granted permission to charge an extra $2 per acre-foot for this
purpose.
Since 1909 the rate charged by the company or its predecessors has increased from
$2.50 per acre-foot to $10 per acre-foot. At the same time the company maintains
that the revenue from water rates during the period 1929 to 1942 was not sufficient to
take care of operating costs, fair return on investment, and provision for depreciation.
Comments and Recommendation.
The appraisal made by the Public Utilities Commission in 1944, since it was based
on a fair return on total investment plus cost of services, may have resulted in fixing
a rate which has no relation to the ability of the water users to pay.
The District brief states as follows: "Assistance from the Government only after
the recipient has reached rock bottom is often of no avail. We would appreciate some
action that could be used with advantage to-day. . . . Unless financial assistance is
given to this area by the Government, it cannot definitely stay in business." The
District desires financial assistance in order to purchase the system from the Okanagan
Centre Irrigation & Power Co., Ltd.
The situation is confused and will require careful " give and take " consideration
by all parties if the water-supply of the district is not to be interrupted. In my opinion
the growers of this District have received less favourable consideration than the
growers of other Okanagan districts. It would seem to be reasonable to try to buy
out the interest of the company in the system. An offer to sell was made in 1944.
If the purchase were made by the District, the situation would be somewhat clarified,
but a distinct loss would be sustained by the Conservation Fund. Only during the past
few years, 1941 to 1945, have the farms of the district been on a profitable basis, and
with no assurance that the period of fair prices will continue, some losses over the
next few years are almost certain.
(a.) The company has a substantial investment in orchards and lands, and
also in the system. The system might well be purchased by the District
for an amount not exceeding the price for which it was offered in 1944. AA 100
THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
(6.)
(c.)
If the system were owned by the District, provision would then have to
be made for renewal reserves and replacements, as estimated by the
District Engineer.
Since it is doubtful whether the District can pay both for the old system
and for the renewal of a large part of it at the same time, it would be
necessary to write off a part of the indebtedness by token payments in
a manner similar to that being followed in other districts under the 1938
arrangement. A token payment of $1,000 is possible, if and when an
additional loan is made with which to purchase the system.
All the above is, however, only by way of suggestion for future development. The
following has to do with the present indebtedness:—
I recommend that $200 be paid annually into the Conservation Fund, and that this
token payment be accepted as full payment for the annual amount due under Order in
Council No. 751, 1933, and its amendment, Order in Council No. 974, 1936.
WYNNDEL IRRIGATION DISTRICT.
(Public Hearings held on August 8th, 1946, at 10 a.m., in
the Knights of Pythias Hall, Creston.)
Summary op Data.
History and Description of the System.—The Wynndel Irrigation District was
incorporated under the " Water Act" in April, 1932.
This is a gravity system, financed with $30,000 borrowed from the Conservation
Fund. The main line is of wood-stave pipe; the laterals are of steel pipe. The entire
system is underground, as the domestic water flows through the same pipes and must
be supplied all year round.    The growers use sprinklers.
Present Condition.—Very little has been spent on replacements since the system
was constructed. Though it is not anticipated that many renewals will be required
for some years to come, in the opinion of the Water Comptroller, complete replacement
of perishable structures would cost over $35,000, and provision should be made for this
by increasing the Renewal Reserve.
Description of Area.—This is a rolling area, consisting mostly of sand and sand
loam.    It is cut up badly and gives every indication of being difficult to farm efficiently.
Water-supply.—This appears to be adequate.
Irrigable Acreage.—The irrigable acreage, as set in the 1938 formula, is 525.
Revenue-producing Acreage.—The revenue-producing acreage was 465 acres in
1938 and may have increased slightly by the present time.
Number of Parcels of Land.—There are 120 parcels of arable land in the District,
but some growers cultivate more than one parcel.
Conservation Fund Standing.—The following statement gives the Conservation
Fund standing of this District with regard to both Principal and Interest, as at
March  15th,  1945 :  Total Principal       Per Irrigated Acre
and Interest. (approximately).
Borrowed and accrued since 1932  $47,838.28 $107.00
Paid     16,969.43 37.00
Written off or not charged       4,200.60 10.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1945     26,667.25 60.00
Owing as at March 15th, 1946     25,924,62
1938 Arrangement.—This District is operating under the 1938 arrangement.
Under Order in Council No. 751 of 1933 the outstanding indebtedness of the
District was reduced from $30,839.90 to $30,000, with the annual repayment set at
$1,860. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION.
AA 101
By the 1938 arrangement the amount of Renewal Reserve was set at $1,000 and
the irrigable acreage at 525, giving a base rate of $5.45 per acre. On a revenue-
producing acreage of 465 acres this resulted in an annual payment to the Conservation
Fund under the 1938 formula of $1,534. The record of the actual payments made by
this District from 1939 to 1946, however, showed that no payment was made in 1940,
but that in 1939, 1941, and 1942 payments in excess of the required amount were
made. At date of preparing this report, only a portion of the 1946 token payment has
been paid by the District.
The following tabulation shows the adjustments and actual amounts of the annual
payments under the 1938 arrangement from 1939 to 1946, inclusive:—
Base Rate
per Acre.
Payments to Conservation Fund.
Year of Adjustment
and Present Year.
Required by
O.C. 751, 974
(1933, 1936).
Under 1938 Arrangement.
Renewal
Reserve.
Acceptable.
Paid.
1939	
$5.45
5.45
5.45
5.45
5.45
5.45
5.45
5.45
$1,860.00
1,860.00
1,860.00
1,860.00
1,860.00
1,860.00
1,860.00
1,860.00
$1,534.00
1,534.00
1,534.00
1,534.00
1,534.00
1,534.00
1,534.00
1,534.00
$2,700.00
$1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00'
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1940	
1941..	
1942	
1943	
1944	
1945	
1946	
3,400.00
1,868.00
1,534.00
1,534.00
1,534.00
800.00
The present standing of the Renewal Reserve Account is given below:—
Total payments as at March 15th, 1946  $7,000.00
Interest accruals         246.99
Total expended from Renewal Reserve as at March 15th,
1946      2,682.99
Balance which should be in Renewal Reserve as at March
15th, 1946       4,564.00
Production.—Production in this District consists mainly of the small fruits, with
some tree-fruits and some flowers and bulbs.
Relative Productivity.—According to the evidence of the District secretary, productivity of this District is similar to that of East Creston, but different from that
of the Okanagan. Wynndel growers do not obtain the premiums for their produce
secured by Okanagan districts in the earlier pools. Markets are sometimes sated with
a commodity before the later-maturing products at Wynndel are ready for shipping.
Mr. E. Uri stated that the raspberries grown at Wynndel do not ship so well as
those grown at the Coast. They have a thinner wall and collapse on shipping. Another
witness testified that Wynndel growers do not get such good prices for their small
fruits as do growers at the Coast.
In the opinion of Mr. E. C. Hunt, District Horticulturist, the productivity at
Wynndel is somewhat less than that at Creston.
Relative Incomes.—Detailed information is not available on this point. They are
known to be relatively low.
Special Factors to be considered.
1. Size of Holdings.—The holdings on the average are very small. The following
table gives an indication of the distribution of land:— Acres.
Arable land (120 parcels)  494.10
Waste land  350.60
146730
PROVINCIAL  LIBRARY
VICTORIA, B. C. AA 102 THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.
Number of
Parcels belonging
to Persons owning
Number of more than
Size of Holding (Acres). Parcels. One Parcel.
2 or less  43 9
2 to 5  35 15
5 to 10  34 3
10 or more     6 1
2. Variations in Productivity.—Productivity within the District varies greatly,
due to extreme differences in altitude and contour of lands, soil differences on the hillside as compared with on the flats, and the advanced age of many growers.
3. Change of Climate.—Since 1932 the climate of the district has been much more
severe than in previous years. In December of 1932 most of the strawberry plantations were destroyed by a blizzard, with the result that instead of a crop in excess of
30,000 crates in 1933, only 8,371 crates were harvested. Growers had to replant at
considerable expense and wait for the plants to grow to producing age. Since then
other blizzards and severe frosts have further damaged the plantations. Severe
weather condiitons such as this were not known in the district previous to 1932. Frost
damage at blossom-time in 1942 resulted in a drop in production from 15,000 boxes
to 787. Such conditions have prevented this district from benefiting greatly from the
increased prices of recent years. In fact, a severe storm can practically extinguish the
ability to pay of a large proportion of the growers who operate small holdings.
4. Diseased Plants.—Unfortunately, following the blizzard of 1932, new plantings
of strawberries had to be made. These proved to be diseased, with the result that
great difficulty has been experienced by the growers in combating strawberry root-rot
and strawberry-weevil since that date.    Production has declined accordingly.
The growers feel that if good supplies of strawberry plants, free from disease and
of a fresh strain, could be brought in, there might be some recovery in this district.
5. Difficulty of maintaining Production.—The evidence indicated that the second
crop of strawberries in this district has never been so good as that obtained from the
virgin soil. Only one grower has been able to get steady production over a number of
years on the same piece of ground. On the side-hills the soil wears down gradually to
within a few inches of the sub-soil, so that it must be continually replenished to produce
a good crop. When the top-soil is reduced, growers find that they must switch from
strawberry culture to the growing of raspberries or tree-fruits.
6. District Requests.—The District brief points out that the products of the
Wynndel Irrigation District provide work for the people of the towns and for the
transportation systems, as well as supplying valuable food products, and it would seem
desirable to assist the people to stay on the land. To this end the District makes the
following requests:—
(1.) That with regard to repayment it be considered separately from other
districts because of its peculiar circumstances of production, climate, and
size of holdings.
(2.)  That no additional financial obligations be imposed.
(3.)  That consideration be given towards easing the  requirements during
years of adversity.
(4.) That consideration be given towards conversion of a considerable portion
of the moneys repaid to apply as reduction of principal.
Comments and Recommendations.
In order to keep up its payments to the Conservation Fund, this District has
curtailed expenditures on maintenance.    Over a ten-year period the expenditure for DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 103
repairs, maintenance and operation, office and administration has been only $466 per
annum on the average.
As arrears of taxes have been collected, they have been paid into the Conservation
Fund, even though this brought the total annual payment to a figure higher than that
required by the 1938 arrangement. On the other hand, a portion of the sum to be
set aside annually for Renewal Reserve is made up of uncollected tolls, to be paid into
the fund upon collection. The Department of Lands does not favour this method of
handling the Renewal Reserve Account. It is of opinion that the Renewal Reserve
requirement should be increased, and that it will be necessary to increase the tax levies
on this account.
In this connection it should be noted that the general ability of the District to
meet its payments has been much less than was anticipated prior to incorporation, due
to a combination of climatic changes, reduced yields of berries per acre, shorter life
of plantations, and in many years unprofitable prices for the product.
The amount originally borrowed from the Conservation Fund was used with great
economy. Through special arrangements with owners for right-of-way, and a policy
of growers supplying labour at Government relief wage rates, the construction of
the works was completed at a figure lower than the original estimate.
Generally speaking, the District has done a good job under very difficult circumstances. It has made its payments only by making personal sacrifices and by paying
a relatively small amount into Renewal Reserve Account. In my opinion if the present
policy continues, the District may be able to meet most of its obligations, but it will
not have the necessary funds for renewals when required, and a new loan will be needed.
Increased assessments at the present time are out of the question.
I therefore recommend:—
(a.)  That the annual payment to the Conservation Fund be $300, and that this
token payment be accepted as full payment of the amount required
annually under Order in Council No. 751,  1933, and its amendment,
Order in Council No. 974, 1936.
(6.)  That the Renewal Reserve be increased to at least $1,500 annually.
VICTORIA,  B.C. :
Printed by Don McDiarmid, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty.
1947.
505-147-8884  PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
DYKING,  DRAINAGE, AND
IRRIGATION COMMISSION
REPORT
Submitted  to the   Provincial  Secretary
December 24th,   1946
DEAN F. M. CLEMENT, Co
mmissioner
Part II.     Dyking and Drainage Districts
VICTORIA.   B.C. :
Printed by Don McDiarmid, Printer to the KiDg's Most Excellent Majesty.
1947.  Vancouver, B.C., December 24th, 1946.
The Honourable G. S. Pearson,
Provincial Secretary,
Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C.
Sir,—I have the honour to submit to you the Report of the Dyking, Drainage, and
Irrigation Commission, together with such recommendations and explanations as I consider fair and reasonable.
The answers to the question in the terms of reference are as brief and specific as
is the question asked. The explanations and comments are lengthy, but I believe are
essential to a comprehensive understanding of the complexities of the problems that
must be faced.
Respectfully submitted.
F. M. CLEMENT,
Commissioner.  ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
I wish to express my thanks to the many trustees, secretaries, and witnesses of
the various irrigation districts for the whole-hearted way in which they co-operated in
securing the necessary information and data.
Thanks are also due to Mr. Bruce Dixon, Inspector and Commissioner of Dykes,
and to Mr. E. Davis, Comptroller of Water Rights, and to their colleagues, who have
made available all information requested.
I wish also to thank Mr. J. Pitcairn Hogg for his assistance and counsel; Miss
Marcia Harris, secretary, for organizing the inquiry and assisting ably with the
preparation of the report; and Miss Joan Williams for correcting and typing the
manuscript.
Public hearings were held in Pitt Meadows, Mission, Chilliwack, Kamloops,
Vernon, Kelowna, Rutland, Westbank, Penticton, Naramata, Peachland, Okanagan
Falls, Cawston, Keremeos, Robson, and Creston. Briefs bearing on the problem were
presented by the representatives of all districts concerned except Pitt Meadows No. 1
Dyking District. One hundred and thirty-eight witnesses gave evidence, and many
scores of growers answered questions by mail.    To all of these I express my thanks.
F. M. CLEMENT,
Commissioner.  TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page.
Terms of Reference  _  113
Recommendations  115
The Dyking and Drainage Districts—
1. The Thoughts back of the Recommendations on Dyking and Drainage  117
2. A General Statement—Reserves are essential  117
A Good Job done on Maintenance  118
Renewal, Replacement, and Improvement and Additions  118
A Ceiling (or Base) Price  118
Price Fluctuations  119
Interest and Sinking Fund Payments postponed  119
Municipal Levies  120
Corporation of the District of Sumas (Statement of Arrears of Taxes) _ 120
Corporation of the District of Pitt Meadows (Statement of Arrears of
Taxes)  121
Matsqui Municipality, Ward 4 (Statement of Arrears of Taxes)  122
General Farms (Operator Incomes)  122
Operator Incomes on some Specialized Farms, 1945  123
Some Important Facts  124
" Dyking Assessments Adjustment Act, 1905 "  124
Individual Dyking and Drainage District Summaries—
Chilliwack Dyking District  132
Coquitlam Dyking District  133
Dewdney Dyking District  135
Maple Ridge Drainage District  137
Maple Ridge Dyking District  138
Matsqui Drainage District  140
Matsqui Dyking District  141
Pitt Meadows Dyking District No. 1  143
Pitt Meadows Dyking District No. 2  144
Sumas Drainage, Dyking, and Development District  145
Ladner Municipality  149
111 LIST OF TABLES.
Dyking and Drainage Districts.
Page.
24. General Farms—Lower Fraser Valley  122
25. Acreage and Indebtedness  125
26. Summary of Debt Analysis—Dyking Districts, 1945  126
27. Total Amount in Arrears on Assessments  126
28. Estimate of Number of Acres at Various Levels in the Districts _■_  127
29. Replacement Schedule  128
30. Dyking and Drainage Assessments (1932 and 1946)  130
112 THE TERMS OF REFERENCE.
To His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in Council:
The undersigned has the honour to report that it is deemed advisable to cause
inquiry to be made to determine how, much each of the improvement districts under
the " Water Act, 1939," and of the districts under the "Drainage, Dyking and Development Act," and the " Dyking Assessments Adjustment Act, 1905," that are indebted
to the Province can pay annually in respect of its indebtedness, and to recommend:—
1. That in accord with the " Public Inquiries Act," being chapter 131 of the
" Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1936," Frederick Moore Clement, of Vancouver, British Columbia, be appointed a sole Commissioner to inquire into and determine how much each of the following corporations can pay annually in respect of its
indebtedness to the Province:—
Black Mountain Irrigation District.
Cawston Irrigation District.
East Creston Irrigation District.
Glenmore Irrigation District.
Heffley Irrigation District.
Keremeos Irrigation District.
Naramata Irrigation District.
Okanagan Falls Irrigation District.
Oyama Irrigation District.
Peachland Irrigation District.
Robson Irrigation District.
Scotty Creek Irrigation District.
South-east Kelowna Irrigation District.
Vernon Irrigation District.
Westbank Irrigation District.
Winfield and Okanagan Centre Irrigation District.
Wynndel Irrigation District.
Chilliwack Dyking District.
Coquitlam Dyking District.
Dewdney Dyking District.
Maple Ridge Drainage District.
Maple Ridge Dyking District.
Matsqui Drainage District.
Matsqui Dyking District.
Pitt Meadows Dyking District.
Pitt Meadows Dyking District No. 2.
Sumas Drainage, Dyking, and Development District.
2. That the said Frederick Moore Clement be paid fifty dollars a day and his
expenses for the time he is engaged in making the said inquiry.
3. That a certified copy of this Order, if approved, be furnished to Frederick
Moore Clement, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Dated the 10th day of May, 1946.
Approved the 10th day of May, 1946.
E. T. KENNEY,
Minister of Lands and Forests.
JOHN HART,
Presiding Member of the Executive
Council.
113 AA 114 THE TERMS OF REFERENCE.
The following letter was handed to me by the Honourable E. T. Kenney, Minister
of Lands, in Victoria on July 6th, 1946:—
Dean F. M. Clement,
University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, B.C. ,
Dear Dean Clement:
In your inquiry to determine the ability of the several irrigation districts to pay
their indebtedness to the Province, please consider the terms of the 1938 arrangement
within the scope of the inquiry.
Yours faithfully,
E. T. KENNEY,
File No. 0160243. Minister. RECOMMENDATIONS.
Vancouver, B.C., December 24th, 1946.
The Honourable G. S. Pearson,
Provincial Secretary,
Victoria, B.C.
Dear Sir,—As instructed in the letter from your office under date of May 18th,
1946, signed by the Deputy Provincial Secretary, I beg to report as follows:—
That after careful examination of the various districts, exhaustive examination
of the records, and subject to the qualifications and explanations contained in the
appendices to this report, the respective districts mentioned in the terms of reference
can pay annually the following amounts on their indebtedness to the Government:—
Name of District.
Black Mountain Irrigation District-
Cawston Irrigation District	
Annual
Payment
(1945).
  $2,873.22
  Nothing
East Creston Irrigation District  6,688.50
Glenmore Irrigation District  1,438.17
Heffley Irrigation District  989.85
Keremeos Irrigation District  1,911.85
Naramata Irrigation District  2,562.00
Okanagan Falls Irrigation District.
Oyama Irrigation District	
Peachland Irrigation District	
Robson Irrigation District	
Scotty Creek Irrigation District	
South-east Kelowna Irrigation District.
Vernon Irrigation District	
700.10
Nothing
Nothing
342.00
881.00
6,000.00
3,575.00
835.00
Westbank Irrigation District	
Winfield and Okanagan Centre Irrigation District  Nothing
Wynndel Irrigation District  800.00
Chilliwack Dyking District  7,000.00
Coquitlam Dyking District  Nothing
Dewdney Dyking District  Nothing
Maple Ridge Drainage District  Nothing
Maple Ridge Dyking District  Nothing
Matsqui Drainage District  Nothing
Matsqui Dyking District  Nothing
Pitt Meadows Dyking District No. 1  Nothing
Pitt Meadows Dyking District No. 2  Nothing
Sumas Drainage, Dyking, and Development
District	
Nothing
Recommended
Annual
Payment.
$1,500.00
200.00
5,000.00
1,438.17
300.00
1,200.00
2,562.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
300.00
6,000.00
3,575.00
835.00
200.00
300.00
7,000.00
300.00
900.00
200.00
1,200.00
200.00
2,200.00
Nothing
100.00
7,000.00
The amounts recommended for repayment annually by the irrigation districts are
based on the assumption that the requirements for Renewal Reserve Account, as
recommended by the resident engineers, have first been provided for.
The amounts recommended for repayment annually by the dyking and drainage
districts are based on the assumption that sums not less than those named for each
district, or greater sums if so advised by the Inspector and Commissioner of Dykes,
have first been provided for the Renewal Reserve Accounts.
115 AA 116 RECOMMENDATIONS.
These amounts are as follows:—
District. Renewal Reserve.
Chilliwack Dyking  $2,500.00
Coquitlam Dyking     1,200.00
Dewdney Dyking     1,200.00
Maple Ridge Drainage        300.00
Maple Ridge Dyking     2,400.00
Matsqui Drainage        600.00
Matsqui Dyking     2,100.00
Pitt Meadows Dyking No. 1    Nothing
Pitt Meadows Dyking No. 2        400.00
Sumas Drainage, Dyking, and Development District  14,000.00
All of the amounts mentioned in the recommendations are based primarily on the
productivity of the land out of which the operator has to make provision annually for
various costs and expenditures.
Suggestions are offered in the appendices with regard to speculative and scarcity
values.    It seems reasonable and fair that some consideration should be given to these
if a larger portion of the borrowings is ever to be repaid.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
F. M. CLEMENT,
Commissioner. APPENDIX.
PART II.
THE DYKING AND DRAINAGE DISTRICTS.
THE   THOUGHTS   BACK   OF   THE   RECOMMENDATIONS   ON   DYKING  AND
DRAINAGE.
The general thoughts back of the recommendations on the dyking and drainage
districts are:—
1. That we should begin anew from where we are at present and, if possible,
make a fresh start. The past, though important, is largely a matter of financial
history.
2. That the districts should be put on as sound a financial basis as possible, with
the object of eventually making them financially independent.
3. That, should all debts be cancelled now, before provision has been made for
substantial reserves, it would not be long before some districts would again have to seek
additional loans.
4. That it is the desire of the Government and residents of the districts to keep
as much as possible of the land in the districts producing abundantly.
5. That the land-owners shall not be pressed beyond their ability to pay.
6. That additional borrowings shall not be necessary, except in cases of catastrophe
or incidents beyond human control.
7. That the districts shall continue under the direction and management of the
Dyking and Drainage Commissioner, under a responsible minister of the Crown, so
long as all or any part of the debt to the Government remains unpaid. t
8. That the principle of the present assessments (tolls), which vary from year to
year, for management, operations, repairs, and maintenance is sound in practice and
shall be continued, and shall not be influenced in any way by the additional practice
of making provision for renewal reserves.
9. That, in addition to 8, an amount shall be collected annually and placed in a
Renewal Reserve Account. The money in this account shall be used only for renewals,
replacements, improvements, and additions to dykes, motors, pumps, gates, and any
such other permanent works and facilities. The account is to be drawn upon and
the money used only on the recommendation of the Dyking and Drainage Commissioner,
subject to the approval of the responsible minister of the Crown.
10. That the present indebtedness of each district shall be amortized (equal annual
payments made up of principal and interest) over a period of years, and a rate of
interest to be decided by the departments concerned. A period of forty years is mentioned in the recommendations, but no reference is made to a rate of interest.
11. That a token payment shall be made each year by each district, and that this
token payment, not less in amount than the sum recommended, shall be accepted as
payment in full for the principal and interest due that year.
12. That consideration will be given to the idea of a ceiling value or price per acre,
based on relative productivity, for the different grades of land in the various districts,
and that when lands change ownership or are disposed of above this price, the full
indebtedness to the Government at that time will be met out of the sale price.
A GENERAL STATEMENT—RESERVES ARE ESSENTIAL.
The following general comments apply to a greater or lesser degree to Coquitlam,
Pitt Meadows No. 1, Pitt Meadows No. 2, and Maple Ridge. They apply to some degree
to all other districts or to some part of them.
117 AA 118 THE DYKING AND DRAINAGE DISTRICTS.
These districts all contain some good lands, but they also all contain some very
poor lands. For about one-half a century men have been trying to make farms and
homes in these areas. A few have been quite successful, but, broadly speaking, the
soil still remains untamed, and modern homes are few. Good crops have been grown
on some of the lands for many years, but in many parts the returns are still well below
the minimum for profitable production. Some are inclined to blame the farmers themselves; others blame the soil; and still others the heavy taxation. All these factors
may play a part, but all are minor compared to one outstanding fact, and that is that
in many parts of these districts the free water-table is too close to the surface, and
consequently a relatively limited area in depth is available within which the root
systems of crops can work.
Full production, and consequently profitable production, cannot be attained until
the winter water and the spring-freshet water are brought under more rigid control.
Decomposition of the peat which covers many sections cannot be hastened while it is
water-saturated. Fertilizer alone will not solve the problem. Lime is of little value
while the water problem dominates. The breakdown of the peat into a usable muck
depends on humification, and this chemical-bacteriological process can take place only
in the presence of air. Air and favourable bacteria cannot play their part in a water-
saturated soil.
Whether or not the high level of water in the districts can be lowered is primarily
an engineering problem, and is not answered here, but the above facts have been considered as they exist, and I do not see how substantial payments can be made on
indebtedness until such time as production can be materially increased. High production annually cannot be attained under existing conditions.
The above points have been carefully considered and have influenced my recommendations.
A Good Job done on Maintenance.
It can be stated with some marked degree of certainty that a good job has been done
in management, operation, repairs, and maintenance. The amount of funds available
must of necessity be the limiting factor in the amount of work accomplished, but, all
things considered, there is little to complain about. The dykes, drains, pumps, and
equipment are in good repair.
Renewal, Replacement, and Improvement and Additions.
Time is always an important factor in the use of man-made goods. No matter
how good the equipment and how well maintained and repaired, it must eventually
wear out or become obsolete and have to be replaced. An attempt has been made to
find out the cost of replacements, improvements, and additions over the next decade.
Only in part can this be measured, but replacements must be provided for, and in considering what recommendations to make, this has played an important part.
In order to make certain areas more productive, certain improvements and additions are essential to dykes and pumps.    These have been considered.
The long-time view is essential, and consequently a strong emphasis has been
placed on the retention of certain funds in the districts and the building-up of reserves
of capital so that it will not be necessary to resort to additional borrowings if this can
be avoided.
I consider this absolutely essential.
A Ceiling (or Base) Price.
This was dealt with at length in the section on irrigation. It is equally important
in the dyking and drainage districts.    In my opinion the only way that a larger part DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 119
of the investment can be regained is to take it when the land is sold or changes hands.
Very often the sale price is at a speculative level, and some of this increase might
readily be paid to the Government in order to relieve that particular parcel of land
from the claim against it.
It is suggested that a ceiling price, based on productive values only, be established
for each and every grade of land in each district, and when land changes hands above
that price, all or part of the Government claim be satisfied.
If, as recommended, the debts of each district are amortized over a period of years
at a selected rate of interest, and if these amortized sums are to be satisfied by the making of token payments only, it follows that the owner of any parcel of land can at any
time meet the total capital indebtedness and buy himself out of the annual capital
levy, or when the parcel changes hands, the Government can thus take the full amount
owing on that parcel, without in any way affecting the general plan of repayment.
I support the suggestion very strongly. i
Price Fluctuations.
The settling rate per pound of butter-fat of the Fraser Valley Milk Producers'
Association over a period of years shows clearly the price fluctuations during the time.
The prices to-day are comparable, though somewhat lower to the prices received from
1917 to 1920. It is interesting to note that the first year of the postponment of payments on capital indebtedness, 1932, is the year of lowest prices. This was followed by
ten disastrous years, from which most of the farmers are only now beginning to
recover.    The settling rates were as follows:—
1917 	
Per Pound of
Butter-fat.
Cents.
    67.30
1932
Per Pound of
Butter-fat.
Cents.
28.67
1918 	
  77.40
1933 _
30.52
1919 	
  90.90
1934 _
30.73
1920 	
  85.30
1935	
  33.21
1921 	
  63.50
1936 _
36.80
1922 	
  61.50
1937 	
___ _    38.65
1923          _   _
              57.50
1938
1939 ______
39.59
1924 	
  62.50
  56.25
  60.75
  61.20
  60.50
  59.85
  34.21
1925 	
1940 ______
  37.93
1926 	
1941	
  44.68
1927 	
1928 	
1929 	
1942
1943
1944
1945
51.58 -j- subsidy
64.80 + subsidy
70.82 + subsidy
69.41 + subsidy
1930 	
1931 	
  54.10
  36.70
Interest and Sinking Fund Payments postponed.
A point over which there seems to be some confusion in the minds of some is
whether or not the payments on interest and to the Sinking Fund were cancelled.
These payments were not cancelled. The payments were postponed. This was done
by amendments to the various Acts at many sessions of the Legislature between 1932
and 1945.    Payments were not postponed by the 1946 session of the Legislature.
Detailed explanations are not necessary. The amendments vary in detail, but all
are the same in principle. They postponed payments on principal and interest for
given periods. AA 120 THE DYKING AND DRAINAGE DISTRICTS.
The following are quoted as examples only:—
An Act to amend the " Dyking Assessments Adjustment Act, 1905."
[Assented to 20th November, 1936.]
(4.) Where, in the opinion of the Minister of Finance, the moneys at the credit of
the sinking fund account in respect of any district, with the interest accruing and to
accrue thereon, are sufficient for the repayment of the capital charge against the lands
in that district at the time fixed for the payment thereof, the Minister of Finance may
by writing authorize the Inspector of Dykes, or the municipal corporation vested with
the powers of the Inspector of Dykes in respect of that district, to omit from the assessment roll for that district for any year the amount otherwise assessable therein for
capital charge.
An Act to amend the " Dewdney Dyking District Relief Act."
[Assented to 28th March, 1945.]
2. The Commissioner shall not levy taxes to provide for interest and sinking fund
upon lands in the district or the owners thereof in the year 1945, and the insufficiency
thereby arising shall be levied for and collected in the year 1982.
The original postponement reads as follows:—
An Act to amend the " Dyking Assessments Adjustment Act, 1905."
[Assented to 7th April, 1933.]
3. In this and the following sections the expression " principal Act" means the
" Dyking Assessments Adjustment Act, 1905." In the year 1933 the Inspector of Dykes
shall make or raise only such assessments as are required to meet the cost for the year
ending on the thirtieth day of September, 1933, of operating, maintaining, repairing, and
managing the dyking-works in the several districts within the scope of the principal Act,
respectively."
Please note that the Inspector of Dykes was authorized to make or raise only such
assessments as are required to meet the cost for the year for operating, maintaining,
repairing, and managing the dyking-works in the several districts.
No provision was made, nor has been made, for renewals, replacements, and improvements. This is important. The recommendations are based on the assumption
that provision has first been made for necessary renewal, replacement, and improvement
reserves.
Municipal Levies.
In order to obtain some information with regard to municipal tax collections,
interviews were held with the clerks of Sumas, Pitt Meadows, and Matsqui municipalities. These interviews provided good information with regard to seven of the ten
districts in the terms of reference.
Undoubtedly, tax collections have improved and arrears have been reduced. There
seem to be at least two reasons for this. First, times and conditions have improved
somewhat, especially since 1942, and, secondly, in some instances the levies were reduced
during the period when economic conditions were very bad.
Corporation of the District of Sumas.
Information obtained from Mr. McPhail, clerk, October 23rd, 1946. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 121
Arrears of Taxes.
Accumulated Arrears
Year. of Municipal Taxes. Total Levy.
1929  $12,891.54 $26,956.18*
1930    7,002.31 24,768.30f
1931   15,103.27 34,007.91
1932   24,184.09 33,020.02
1933   31,764.90 30,495.88
1934   37,984.97 28,850.00
1935   43,111.77 29,103.37
1936   46,927.99 27,508.40
1937   49,633.29 28,456.18
1938   49,760.71 28,571.44
1939   46,044.97 28,745.93
1940 (wrote off over $30,000)       16,948.53 29,050.14
1941   16,104.57 29,419.82
1942   14,042.38 33,967.07
1943    7,837.81 37,133.00
1944    7,974.92 43,928.05^:
1945    5,051.40 49,718.96
* This assessment included the lake-bottom lands which were later covered by the 1929 and 1931 amendments to
the " Sumas Dyking, Drainage, and Development Act."
t Some of the land in the lake area was still unsold at this time.
t School levy was increased.
Tax sales have been negligible. In this connection it should be noted that large
amounts of arrears were written off by the municipality because they could not sell
certain lands for non-payment of taxes.
Corporation of the District of Pitt Meadows.
Information obtained from Mr. Wm. McDermott, clerk, October 22nd, 1946. (Re
Pitt Meadows No. 1, No. 2, and Maple Ridge Dyking and Drainage.)
Arrears of Taxes.
Accumulated Arrears,
Year. Three-year Period. Total Levy.
1930  $13,450.00 $22,620.00
1931  :  19,042.00 23,120.00
1932 :  19,326.00 16,423.00
1933  17,779.00 16,257.00
1934  18,009.00 14,704.00
1935  12,260.00 15,296.00
1936  8,971.00 13,610.00
1937  8,578.87 13,039.59
1938  6,702.45 12,721.00
1939  7,449.96 12,646.00
1940  7,290.29 13,893.00
1941   6,750.00 12,945.00
1942  6,865.00 14,929.00
1943 1  6,313.00 14,292.00
1944  6,326.00 16,115.00
1945  2,886.00 18,926.00 AA 122
THE DYKING AND DRAINAGE DISTRICTS.
Matsqui Municipality.
Information obtained from Mr. Bain, October 23rd, 1946.
Arrears of Taxes, Ward 4*
Year.
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
Accumulated Arrears,
Three-year Period.
_ $2,638.29
3,086.16
4,223.41
8,243.25
5,239.84
4,402.94
2,721.24
2,253.69
2,501.33
2,736.67
4,125.59
5,219.82
4,792.16
4,039.43
3,101.06
2,597.83
2,946.27
Total Levy.
$16,283.44
16,240.63
17,022.28
13,598.35
10,946.64
8,102.59
10,797.03
10,766.43
11,140.97
11,821.81
16,008.31
17,802.77
18,124.98
18,788.81
18,643.21
20,787.70
26,539.73
* Ward 4 consists mostly of the higher better-grade lands in Matsqui Dyking District. The drainage district is
largely in Ward 3. The productivity of parts of Ward 3 is scarcely comparable to the productivity of most of
Ward 4.
Seven of the ten dyking and drainage districts in the terms of reference are for
the most part included in the three municipalities mentioned above.
A study of the above tables indicates clearly that some improvement has taken
place, that arrears of taxes have been reduced, and that the districts are now in a
position to pay something on their indebtedness.
General Farms (Operator Incomes).
An attempt was made to obtain an income picture of the general farms. Not all
of the farms in the following table are in dyking and drainage districts, but I believe
the picture as depicted by the table is a true one for the districts.
The returns for interest and labour (operator income) vary markedly. Of the
farms listed, less than 40 per cent, paid operator incomes of $1,000 or more in 1945.
Half of them paid less than $800.
No dairy-farms are included in this list, but from unpublished data now in my
hands it is fair to draw the conclusion that the situation on the dairy-farms varies
little from that on the general farms.
Table 24.—General Farms—Lower Fraser Valley.
(Arrayed in descending order of labour income.)
Report
No.
C104..
Labour
Income.
$6,803.05
Report
No.
Labour
Income.
B112  4,265.11
A136  3,410.64
B120  2,666.60
B190  2,573.08
A172  $2,048.35
B121  1,852.63
B105  1,795.41
A153  1,768.87
B119  1,687.71 DYKING,
DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION.             AA 123
Table 24-—
Report
No.
A191	
B159
-General Farms—
Labour
Income.
$1,563.35
1,542.69
     1,534.80
-Lower Fraser
Report
No.
B177
D149
Valley-
-Continued.
Labour
Income.
$657.60
          563.94
A149	
A110
DI31
          401.78
A171
1,414.22
1,320.14
1,315.71
1,191.15
1,168.05
1,054.97
980.09
931.25
913.06
899.07
881.62
875.47
793.14
769.92
        718.36
700.82
          395.77
B117	
A189___
          349.46
D113
B107___
          337.18
C103	
D125.
          255.71
A130	
A123_.
          154.35
B106 __     __-
A108.
A106__.
          133.41
A112	
                .03
D106 _
B136
B193.
A177
A109._
cm
B151...
        —33.34
A195	
—98.55
A163	
      —176.92
B196	
B157	
—398.24
       —445.40
B148	
      —835.55
A205	
A154
D168
A134
      —847.04
B160
—1,034.38
D137
  —1,840.44
B108	
        670.44
A157._
  —2,277.18
Operator Incomes on some Specialized Farms, 1945.
The following array shows the income distribution of a group of men in the dyking
districts. The figures are the labour earnings of men who appeared as witnesses and
who agreed to submit figures on farm operations. In every case the farm was visited
by a qualified enumerator who obtained the necessary data for examination in the office.
The sample, though small, is typical and therefore may be considered to be fairly
accurate. It can be expected that the relative positions of the farms will change from
year to year.
Some of the farms that show a loss in 1945 might well show a substantial labour
income in 1946, and, likewise, some farms showing substantial labour incomes in 1945
will show losses in 1946. Chance plays an important part in all operations in these
districts.
Operator
No.
1__
2____
3_._
4__
Labour
Earnings.
$4,628.49
4,390.82
2,093.67
2,092.63
Operator
No.
5  1,489.77
6  1,466.29
7  1,290.19
8  1,162.44
9  1,126.17
10  927.41
11  891.86
12  514.38
13  456.52
Labour
Earnings.
       $398.74
         325.60
         269.76
  1.81
     —109.62
     —355.12
     —646.31
     —869.67
 —1,201.72
 —1,356.80
24 _.     —2,179.12
25 —3,164.43
14..
15
16.
17..
18..
19.
20..
21.
22.
23 AA 124 THE DYKING AND DRAINAGE DISTRICTS.
Some Important Facts.
The tables that follow were prepared for the most part by Mr.  Bruce Dixon,
Inspector and Commissioner of Dykes, and his staff, New Westminster.    They were
prepared in answer to a series of questions and, I believe, bring out the necessary
facts with regard to the business situations in the districts.
Some of the pertinent facts are as follows:—
(a.)  Total acres reverted (Table 25).
(6.)   Increase in indebtedness (Table 25).
(c.)   Miles of dykes in relation to the total acres protected (Table 25).
(d.) Total indebtedness, simple interest added  (Table 26).
(e.)  Arrears in assessments in 1931 as compared with those in 1946  (Table
27).
(/.)   The "productivity" situation (Table 28).
(g.)  Estimated required replacements over a period of time, and amounts
borrowed for replacements and additions since 1905   (Table 29).
(h.)  Dyking and drainage assessments, 1946, both capital and maintenance,
as compared with those of 1932 (Table 30).
" Dyking Assessments Adjustment Act, 1905."
The " Dyking Assessments Adjustment Act, 1905," recited in its preamble the
various expenditures made by the Government of the Province in each district, and
finished the preamble with this clause:—
" And, whereas, in order that the Province may recover some portion of the moneys
expended as aforesaid and that the progress and development of the said districts may
not be retarded, it is deemed advisable in the public interests that the assessments
imposed on the said lands should not be greater than the owners and occupiers thereof
can pay."
The above is quoted only as a matter of interest. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION.
AA 125
g
s
I-H
'S3
e
Cfi
e
ca
_.
K_
<_<_
5_
s
8
Eh
OS
w
h
a 3
if
CI
EO-
P.
00
CO
o
c
OS
to
tc
(M
to
IO
CO
u:
CM
a
to
«
CM
oc
©
©
CM
©
c-;
c
©
IO
0s
it.
I-H
IO
t£
CO
trio
oc
(M
CO
©
W-
<M
CO
OS   <M
CO    CM
T-i   o   to   IO
to   CO   >-H   c-
-*    CM    l-H     rH
t-   tf   N   t-   N
OO   Tf   IM   (C   CO
CM   d   CO   ©   CO
o   ©   o   ©  ©
©  ©  ©  © ©
© d d d io
IO     CO    CM     rH
Q
z w
IP
l. <: h
Kg.0"
5£
CI
<->?
tr- o
o  ©
00   o
iM   t-
OJ   to
d  tH
O   O   O   iH   ©
O   O   c_>   ■«<   o
•^     CM    rH     CM     IO
d d o i-h d
IO   M<
IO    ©
00   TJ*
©    CM
©    ©    IO    CO    00    00   ©
to   kO  c- co   w  c:   o
CM    M    ©    CO    CO    CO    rH
CM    iH    ©    ©    ©    ©    rH
OS
CO
Ci
&3-
Ol   o
cm  to
ia t-
CO   CO
X    CO
t-  to
d ih
O     O    O     rH     O
O   ©   ©   tr-   O
■<*    N    tH    C-    IO
<Z>   C>   C'   c~>   c>
IO   Ci
oo d
d   CM
©     ©     ©     LO    IO     LO     ©
in in  ic f c-  t- o
CM    CO    IO    CM    CM    CM    rH
N    rH    ©    ©    ©    ©    rH
.5 be
CD   C
^5
CO
o
CO
t-
©
GO
(M
00
CS
CO*
II     -
to
0   CD
CD
CO
00
CO
©
(M
CO   ©
© ■*
d io
i
M
Ed
>
H
tt
tn
Eel
«
<
B
O
H
10
OS
N
CM
to
to
o
CM   00
CO   ©
<M   CM
ci
CO
o
o
©
OS
o'
o
00
CO
o
o
t>
CO
cs
©   ©
©   O
d c-
00    t-
CO    CO
© ©
CO   o
rH    CM
IO    O
rH    IO
cm
CO
©
o
CM
00
CM
CM
C0   CO
©
Cs!
O
Iz;
©00©©O©o©.—ltDlOt-CC0"S-O©©©COCO00-"3'             ©tOCSCOtO-O-tfi—j
©■^©©©©©©C0^C0(MrHCMG0©Q0as0CrHt--CO           OC--<*s_OtDOOO^_,
OCON-l.^'ddWNMM-^O.'fl'W^'C.OINlKrt'H'             lOE^i—lcJi-H|_^C0m
Or.!Ct-'JM(X)HD.Ml(.t-WOC?--00H[-ffit'O             t-Mt-^iaCCt-Q
OC4CQb--OSO*$r-IcOtOtr-^rt-ClCCrHCiffi-^flO.—IO             OCCWNOJ^^^
O.    M   M                   rH                   00   N   1(5   IO   H   N           ©   CO   N                   rH   rH           CO   ffi   Q   CO
rH                                                                                                                   t-i                                                           CM
4-5
«
CO
s
o
QJ
s
c.
1?
2
b
C
4-
t
-
c
c
CI
-
c.
_,
.j
6
. 2
1
p
Q
C
.]
a
e
0
c
i   c.
7
'<
D
0
p
"c
c
a
c
p
a
C
a
4
#c
s
£
D
t
e
t
I
.2
e
I
c
1
0
IE
1
>
X
£
i
n
k
_
4-
c
T
+■
0
C
a
■ft
.
i
i
e
J
S
0
J
<
1  "
i
PC
T
C
4-
t
T
4-
c
>
Q
"k
c
t
4
a
t
't
4-
«
'S
.  it
c
*!=
1"   c
a
4
0
IS
0
2
_T
<
? -
•
0
1
D
S
c
4
C
4-
[
c
b
_e
|i
e
!
t
c
a
4>
5
C
c
4-
C
J
I
e
0   -
. >
C
a
$
C
0
a
s
4
4
5
c
eu
S
p.
_o
"a
QJ
n
C
C.
t_
c
3
t H
^   U _.
| i
PC
s
1
CI
<
_
n
c
6
e
1
c
c
X
c
a
-
Ft
;
D
r?
r-
0
Q
t
r
!
!
1 AA 126
THE DYKING AND DRAINAGE DISTRICTS.
Table 26.—Summary of Debt Analysis—Dyking Districts, 1945.
Initial Debt.
Total 1932
Debt.
Interest not
levied
(Simple).
Total 1945
Debt.
Acres.
September 30th—
See Remarks.
$108,755.32            $37,984.21
251,783.61            103,826.15
24,636.75              15,602.18
30,474.34              12,540.90
34,044.14                 9,628.40
219,127.09            119,223.27
54,131.78              42,452.60
76,657.32*            58,086.17
19,000.00
$38,372.49
98,030.23
9,127.28
11,547.18
10,202.83
93,201.42
24,834.77
42,558.11
$71,386.10
187,402.46
24,729.46
18,739.11
16,164.38
180,102.99
67,287.37
113,176.23
674,753.58
3,213.48
8,382.31
5.477.27
Pitt Meadows Dyking District No. 1
Pitt Meadows Dyking District No. 2
1,174.78
1,091.64
10,174.00
3,982.89
December 31st—
3,362.00
Sumas Drainage, Dyking, and Develop-
28,075.00
S799.610.35     1     $399,343.88
$327,874.31
$1,353,741.68
83,933.37
* Adjusted 1939 at conclusion of trust.
Table 27.—Total Amount in Arrears on Assessments.
September 30th, 1931.
September 30th, 1946.
Name of District.
Capital.
Maintenance.
Total.
Capital.
Maintenance.
Consolidated
Arrears.
TotaL
$3,876.66
4,289.13
1,778.28
4,387.27
4,374.83
153.39
1,007.16
2,048.16
75,907.05
$7,678.24
8,511.44
355.50
9,381.60
955.39
625.02
3,458.72
2,113.96
41,678.99
$11,554.90
12,800.57
2,133.78
13,768.87
5,330.22
778.41
4,465.88
4,162.12
117,586.04
$3,594.65
14.45
$11,542.41
5,848.26
354.44
5,129.32
1,196.79
371.40
1,852.52
4,257.50
6,276.02
$15,187.06
$753.54
6,616.25
354.44
122.16
5,251.48
1,196.79
113.10
266.36
484.50
2,118.88
4,812.60
25.04
9,070.10
6,865.72*
Sumas   Drainage,   Dyking,   and
Development  District   (December
31st, 1932)	
564.66
* December 31st, 1945.
Note.—Of the arrears shown as at September 30th, 1946, $14,314.39 in the Coquitlam Dyking District, $3,970.08
in the Maple Ridge Dyking District, $423.45 in the Pitt Meadows Dyking District No. 1, and $1,923.20 in the Pitt
Meadows Dyking District No. 2 are owing by the municipal corporations for dyking taxes on roads and streets.
This is also true in the Matsqui Dyking and Matsqui Drainage Districts in the amounts of $1,775.88 and $700
respectively. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION.
AA 127
Table 28.—Estimate of Number of Acres at Various Levels in the Districts.
Name of District.
Productivity Classifications.*
High.
Medium.
Low.
Waste
Land
Coquitlam Dyking District (3,212 acres)	
Dewdney Dyking District (3,355 acres)	
Acres.
325
1,000
S
2,600
200
Acres.
1,950
1,300
Acres.
900
800
ing.
4,000
ig.
1,200
500
1,000
10,355J
Acres.
37 (400)
253
Maple Ridge Dyking District (8,333 acres)	
|          1,430
300 (550)f
8,600
246 (130)
675 (975)
90 (35)
1,925
15,500
200
* " High " means above average freshet heights. " Medium " means below average freshet heights but admitting of 4 feet of drainage. " Low " means below lowest freshet and admitting of less than 4 feet of drainage but
more than 2 feet. "Waste land" means swamp or slough margins of uncertain use. () Bracketed figures denote
areas in ownership of Crown at this date, November, 1946.
t Would be more except for activity in peat products.
t Lake area—continuous pumping admits of sufficient drainage. AA 128                          THE DYKING AND DRAINAGE DISTRICTS.
Table 29.—Replacement Schedide.
Name of District.
Original Cost.
Present
Age
(Years).
Date due
for
Renewal.
Estimated Cost of
Replacement and
Additions for
Ten-year Period
1946-56.
Amount borrowed
for Replacements
and Additions
since 1905-
Coquitlam Dyking
District.
($151,280.35)*   $57,988.00
18,016.07
12,500.00
10,954.82
8,775.17
48
34
8
32
23
1962
1988
Annual maintenance
as required
Addition, $6,000
$50,767.00
Flood-boxes	
Back-ditch improve-
Total	
$108,234.06
Dewdney Dyking
District.
($202,500.00) t   $79,832.00
20,184.92
9
1987
Renewal of discharge-
pipe, $2,000
$15,000.00
(Repaid in two years.)
Total	
$100,016.92
Maple Ridge Dyking
District.
($221,981.96)* $127,396.00
17,533.73
21,162.45
23,463.67
11,338.95
6,300.00
9,664.50
18,262.47
48
34
25
8
34
23
26
23
1962
1971
1987
Annual maintenance
as required
Possible addition, one
small pump, $4,000
$15,308.11
109,079.56
McKenney Creek diversion	
Total	
$235,121.77
Maple Ridge Drainage District.
41.66 miles of ditches...
Matsqui Dyking
District.
$24,636.75
21
Annual
Maintenance
Nil
($209,915.60)* $125,000.00
10,152.83
39,041.13
15,590.00
15,266.94
13,983.85
41
32
26
2
26
26
1964
1970
1994
Annual maintenance
as required
River-bank     protection, $10,000
Possible    addition;
motor,    pipe-line,
and installation for
additional    pump
now    in    stock,
$12,000
$9,685.86
80,090.23
Pumps	
Pumps	
Total	
$234,301.69
Matsqui Drainage
District.
4.5 miles of canals and
17.3 miles of ditches
($106,464.32)*   $54,131.78
26
Annual
Maintenance
Nil
* Bracketed figures are costs as at 1st November, 1904.
t Bracketed figures are costs as at 1st November, 1929. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION.
AA 129
Table 29.—Replacement Schedule—Continued.
Name of District.
Original Cost.
Present
Age
(Years).
Date due
for
Renewal.
Estimated Cost of
Replacement and
Additions for
Ten-vear Period
1946-56.
Amount borrowed
for Replacements
and Additions
since 1905.
Pitt Meadows Dyking
No.l.
($44,436.55)*   $17,815.32
5,764.46
2,526.37
46
34
34
1962
Annual maintenance
as required
Depends upon service
requirement
$4,177.58
8,481.44
Total	
$26,106.15
Pitt Meadows Dyking
No. 2.
($44,436.56)*   $17,052.68
9,104.51
1,500.00
2,351.85
3,856.16
46
34
34
1962
Annual maintenance
as required
Possible    change    in
equipment  to  give
required   drainage,
$6,000
$16,991.46
Drainage extension
(part of district)
Total	
$33,865.20
Sumas Drainage,
Dyking, and Development District.
Vedder Canal and East
and West Vedder
$529,549.53
110,000.00
793,997.58
31,329.28
56,438.28
3,615,459.12
24
23
24
23-24
1972
1972
Difficult  to   estimate
(see Note)$
Annual maintenance
as required
Pumps, main	
Pumps, McGillivray
Dykes   inclusive  of
Maintenance.
Dredging equipment—
$28,800.00
1,000.00
14,000.00
20
6
New
$15,000
Sundry items—
1 drag-line on order..
* Bracketed figures are costs as at 1st November, 1904.
t Figures taken from report of former Commissioner.
Books of account do not segregate in this manner.
t Note.—The Vedder Canal was made large enough to provide material for the parallel dykes on either side, and
approximately 2,900,000 cubic yards were excavated. The worst storm on record was estimated to have discharged
27,000 second-feet from the Vedder River, and the canal, as originally constructed, would accommodate 60,000
second-feet, and therefore had a factor of safety of 2.22. Silting has, we know, taken place and to a considerable
extent. It is the opinion of the Sumas Commissioner that if further silting can be prevented, we will maintain a
factor of safety of 1.5. Approximately 100,000 cubic yards have been excavated from a settling-basin in the last two
years in an effort to prevent further silting. AA 130
THE DYKING AND DRAINAGE DISTRICTS.
t-
t-
H    Ifl    N
CO          «
10 10 10
-*
10   ©   00   -<*<
©    -rf<    CM
«               t-    H    OO
as
£sf
•      =1    O    1-.    iH    ©    CO
00
t-   CO   00   -*
CO    ■**    CM
10         u
)               IO    ©    IO
CO
-*
-     O   W   ■*   IO   CO   10
£ w
(N
« eg h rl
rH             O
1-.
CM
CO
CO             "c
DJ    t    N    H
«a
€              =
i
S_3
se-     j
< ffl 0 q
<   ffl    O
<: ffl 0
OjUUjljHh
P.O
:   .'
1
c_
«a
0
*    ^
5
0
H
^
CO
t-
"*
CO
t-
CM
©
CO
©
r_ c
N
CO
©
l>
CO
©
3 s
0 0
C-^
©
©
r_H
0
M
"3-
10
co
&3-     :
CO
©
©
t^
CM
O
CO
*4
(M
©*
t~
0
CO*
CO
CO
IO
CO
CM
5
©
"<3~
00*
CO
t-   00   -^1
za        «
©
t-
rlOlfl
to        c
t-
CO
©
©
W    ©    CO    "*
"*   c-   CO
(M    ©    CO
10
©
O   tO   ■*   N   H
CO
C-    CO    CO    "^
C-;    CO    t-i
m        a
CO    ©    CO
©
t-
__-
t-i    CO    (M    ©    CO
01
0
r r3 .' ..'
^          S
r*. .
M    H   H
§ >>
_;
CO
©
[A
%
VtA
&?    :
«. ffl 0 ft
< ffl u
M           c
< ffl u
O U M w >-s
so
g
ffl
.    _l
05
iJ
«"q
IH
0
1
"       -      .
13
a
s
S
ft
_j
0
8
j
0
•
©
-*
©
©
CO
Q
t-
CO
IO
r_3  C
<N
IO
CO
©
O
t-
CO
Gl
o*
-2  §
5 0
cn
as
CN
©
p_J
0
0'
ci
00
®3
«■
01
CO
CO
t-
10
©
IO
CO
O.
h
00
t-
ua
CO
co
CM
CO
CO
>H
<N*
co
oT
©
•^
CO*
10
03
s_-
u
0
8
m t-
© ©  1-
CO
IT
.
10
<»
IO   ct
Q
irs c- co
«-flt © If
^.   0
t-   if
0 cr
00 co a
0  © ©   10  t-
s
CO
00
©   CT
©
rH 0  0
<« u> t-
©     M
0 «c
10 <>
ir
CO   •«
Q    H    H    IO   N
2 ^
1-1
lH
:   :   :
5      c
r-4
rt    r-
r-t             Cv
C^
1-1 ^-.
00
00
0
<3 >
s3
69-    :
< ffl O
< ffl 0 a ^
^
e.
ffl
J   J
<u
S
Q W
&
;   ;
e
'3
1
S
53
•
■^ er
CO
•*
CO             If
H
eo er
C5    C
If
(__:
CM
g.
■^ C
© t-
cn
00
__-           ■<:
^
CO  e-
I-|   M
t-             CC
CM
Q
f 0
© t-
co
CO
id        ir
09
CM   C
<o c-
CT
Cv
^J*
ae-    i
"*    CZ
CO
©
©        c
O
CO   ■«*
CO   ■*!
If
c
ir-
a
*4
CO    CP
10
Tj<                  IC
cn
0 K-
e- ^»
-«a" CN
eo"
IO                  t-
^    CC
i-<  r-
CO
CO
53
S
•<s»
^a
.a
Q
0
03
CD
-_^
rQ
e
*
6-1
t
X
-4J
ft
.2
'u
d
5
•M
S
a
Q
I
1
<H
1
^
O
i-H
(M
'al
CJ
i
1
d
iz;
d
Iz;
>
u
ft
iz;
[
c
1
0
a
TJ
1
H                          u
C
■£   «_   a,
0   2   t
.2      S s   a
0             tfl  6       c
.i
1  t> °-
w    "    c
_S    c    C
■5   Q
CJ
C
8
|
CXI
*          __      oca
.2             |         _o 3    i
__
£  5  a
H    S    C
ft 2
M    OJ
IS
to   __ -5 £
S      fl   _H     °
n             c         .5 .5     c
_.               '3           _* _3      '3
s        S -a ■£
CiO                  T   _S    9
si3
3»
>. •
s
ft
S s   s
1     «   *** ;
Q                           __                   t_   _           „
"              2          S I      _
5              A          A J     c
0 o.S.
1 IS*
1         ?o P
QSs
Q S
S
8)
_,    "    __    h
* ^ «,
O   «   s-
TS    C    U
S O C
O    B
T3    C
33
u
u
.s
'3
F-j
| foe
S c
__*
a
0
0
go
3
*                        «                  B
+J               -*-l
■+->
S
J=      O
cd                cn
O    O
R            s.        S
s      s
ffl
ffl
3
• DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION.
AA 131
<_>
3
a
•r-l
a
o
o
to
1
OS
oo
OO
CO
a
■ ^
e
1
•S
Q
o
so
Cj  CJ
<_;
"I
>
0
CJ 1—I
ffl
rJ
-S
p.
O
°1
•?
QJM
P.
HE
< m o p
© "tf
cn cm
© If)
1* fc-
00    ©    ©
i-i   IO   CM
N   CM
H
■H
< ffl
o o
< « o
< pa o
© © o
<l M U
is
o
<*; m o
< n o
(N   CO   C.   0.
<! o O W IT ">
oob^
u io  t- «
N  co to cc
< U 0 •"»
: _ 5 -1
s
is I,
n
a
5
DO
M
c
ft
0
£
3
(4
S.
>
Jfi
A
K
CJ
u
ft
E
e
h
x
CJ
a
5,
0
S }_
_. B r_
ill
P   I    -
v _3 a
%S-S
__. & ■»
__> _; F
HOC
■a is «S
s s o
0 O P
S    B
B  3
c
ft  rt
c
_D   S
c
Cj
M  §
c
o
15 .*
a
3-b
c
_. a
»> a
0 S
S.
RS
S
g  h
» a
T)
S a
«
O    ra
o  a
■O    E
F-
H
I!
t V
4)
ft
£ o
ft
R AA 132 THE DYKING AND DRAINAGE DISTRICTS.
INDIVIDUAL DYKING AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT SUMMARIES.
CHILLIWACK DYKING DISTRICT.
(Hearings held in Municipal Hall, Chilliwack, July 11th, 1946.)
Summary of Data.
Location.—The Chilliwack Dyking District is located at the eastern end of the
Lower Fraser Valley, and in point of distance is farthest away among the milk-
producing areas for the cities of Vancouver and New Westminster.
Description of Area.—The total area is approximately 19,600 acres and, generally
speaking, is relatively level.    The City of Chilliwack is within the area.
Description of Works.—The dyke in this District is the only one commenced and
completed by the Government. As the dyke for the most part was constructed by train
fill and the only obstacles encountered were three slough crossings, the original cost per
acre was comparatively low, $15 per acre approximately, as against more than $125 per
acre for Sumas.
Great care was taken in the construction of this dyke. Where it went through
forest, the ground was properly grubbed, and muck ditches were constructed under the
fill in some cases. The strata was broken to give as nearly as possible an impervious
embankment.. These precautions resulted in a solid dyke which has required very
little expenditure for maintenance.
Ownership and Size of Holdings.—The area is privately owned, and the holdings
vary in size from a few acres to quite large dairy-farms.
No Reverted Lands.—There are no lands in this District which have reverted for
non-payment of dyking assessments.
Land Sales.—Land sales have been many in recent years. Some of the best lands
have sold at $500 or more per acre.
Indebtedness to the Government.—The original estimate for constructing the dyke
in this District was $149,717, but this was later raised to $265,000. Construction was
completed by March, 1903.
In 1918 administration of the Chilliwack Dyking District was turned over to the
Corporation of the District of Chilliwack.
Because of the comparatively low capital and maintenance charges, the District
took advantage of the opportunity to postpone capital payments for two years only. As
a result, the amount accumulated in the Sinking Fund was sufficient to pay off the total
capital charge by 1940, and the District is now merely paying some back interest. This
will be paid off by 1948.
The following is a statement of the standing of this District with regard to its
indebtedness to the Government:— Total. Per Acre.
Total debt as at November 1st, 1904  $289,899.79 $15.00
Amount of capital forgiven       89,899.79 	
Total debt as set by D.A.A. Act, 1905     200,000.00 10.00
Total debt as at 1945—
Capital   Nil 	
Interest   Nil 	
*Annual charges as at 1940—
Capital  _  $3,000.00
Interest     7,000.00
       10,000.00 	
* Annual charges as at 1945—
Capital 	
Interest  $7,000.00        7,000.00 	
* Approximate figures. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 133
. Dyking Charges.—Before the capital debt was paid up, the dyking charges in the
Chilliwack Dyking District were as follows:— PerAcre.
Annual maintenance  $0,277
Capital charge (sinking fund and interest)       .473
Total charges, 1939  $0.75
In 1946, with the capital debt paid off and interest only being levied, the dyking
charges are as follows:— Per Acre.
Annual maintenance  $0,277
Capital charge (interest only)       .373
Total charges, 1946  $0.65
Production.—This is a well-farmed highly productive area.    The production is
mixed, ranging from good dairy cattle to small fruits and vegetables.
Special Factors.
River-bank Protection.—Although the cost of maintenance on the Chilliwack dyke
has been very low, large expenditures have been made on river-bank protection where
erosion has endangered the dyke. The Dominion Government, because of its interest
in keeping the river-channel navigable, and the Provincial Government, because of the
protection afforded to the roads, shared in these costs. The following statement indicates the amounts spent on river-bank protection over a period of years:—
Expenditure on river-bank protection, 1924-38—
Dominion and Provincial Governments  $33,765.00
Corporation of the District of Chilliwack     25,600.00*
$59,365.00
Expenditure on river-bank protection, 1942-46—
Dominion Government  $5,704.53
Provincial Government  14,045.67
Corporation of the District of Chilliwack  10,489.83
* Of this amount, 10 per cent, was charged to the Municipality of Chilliwack as a whole, and 90 per cent, to the
Dyking District.
Comments and Recommendation.
This District has been well managed. The original capital cost was relatively low,
and except for a short period the District has met its obligations with definite regularity.    Some interest only remains to be paid.
The District can pay and is meeting regularly all its obligations to the Government.
The indebtedness will have been completely liquidated by 1948. Since this is the case,
no recommendation is necessary.
COQUITLAM DYKING DISTRICT.
(Hearings in the Municipal Hall, Pitt Meadows, 9.30 a.m., July 9th, 1946.)
Summary of Data.
Location.—The Coquitlam Dyking District is located on the west bank of the Pitt
River, near the confluence of the Pitt and the Fraser.    It lies partly within the boun- AA 134 THE DYKING AND DRAINAGE DISTRICTS.
daries of the Corporation of the District of Coquitlam and partly in the Municipality
of Coquitlam.   The main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway runs through this District.
Description of Area.—The total area is 3,213.48 acres, of which 205 acres are used
for the C.P.R. yards.
Except for a few hundred acres, this is not first-class land. It requires good
drainage and repeated applications of lime and fertilizer to render it reasonably productive. The water-table comes very close to the surface in the winter-time and during
the spring freshet.
Description of Works.—In this District there is an earthen dyke 8.41 miles long
and an interception ditch 3.75 miles long, constructed to an elevation 2 feet above the
1894 high-water contour.
Gravity drainage at low water is permitted by three flood-boxes through the dykes,
with a combined sectional area of 318 square feet.
Artificial drainage is provided by three pumping plants with 230 connected horsepower and a rating of 57,000 i.g. per minute against a 10-foot head.
Ownership and Size of Holdings.—There are 116 owners in the District, of whom
forty-two are non-resident and may be assumed to be not bona fide farmers. The
largest holding consists of 690 acres. The average holding is 27.75 acres, but thirteen
owners hold 1 acre or less each, forty-four hold 5 acres or less each, and seventy-seven
hold 10 acres or less each.
Reverted Lands.—By 1932, 201 acres had reverted to the Crown for non-payment
of dyking assessments; by 1939 the number of reverted acres totalled 499, and by 1945,
625. Of these, 50 per cent, had not been ploughed since 1921, but were used for
pasture. The water-table is too high on these lands for cultivation at present. To
lower the water-table, another pump would be required.
Land Sales.—A great deal of land has changed hands recently in this District.
Some has been purchased from the Crown at as low as $20 an acre; some has been
bought from the Crown, subdivided and sold for from $100 to $150 an acre. This latter
sum, in my judgment, is a very high price to pay per acre, even for small holdings, if
the amount is to be earned from the land.
Indebtedness to the Government.—This District operates under the provisions of
the " Dyking Assessments Adjustment Act, 1905," with amendments. The following
statement indicates the standing of the Coquitlam Dyking District with regard to its
debt to the Government:—
Debt as in November, 1904	
Debt as set by D.A.A. Act, 1905       57,988.00
Further advances up to 1932	
Total payments up to 1932 (interest, sinking fund, and deferred maintenance) ____
Total debt as in 1932	
Advances since 1932	
Total debt as at September 30th, 1945       71,386.10* 22.21
Total.
Per Acre.
$151,280.35
$47.00
57,988.00
18.00
38,267.32
129,324.68
37,984.21
11.82
12.500.00
* Simple interest added since 1932.
Dyking Assessments.—In 1932, when the annual capital payments were postponed,
the dyking assessments were as set forth in Table 30.
In 1946, with the capital levy restored after a postponement of thirteen years, the
dyking assessments are as set forth in Table 30.
Production.—In this District there is a fair acreage planted to beans, potatoes, and
general truck crops. There are also some small fruits, and dairying is carried on
to some extent. Sometimes all or part of the crops are lost due to high water in
early spring. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 135
Relative Productivity.—The productivity is about on a par with the respective
productivities of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows No. 2, but is not the equal of productivity in Sumas and Chilliwack.
For estimates of renewals, replacements, and additions see Table 29.
Special Factors.—Representatives of the city and municipality pointed out that
additional services are required by the many newcomers to this area. The land cannot
bear the increased cost of education, hospitalization, roads, ditches, etc., in addition to
the heavy dyking charges.
Since the timber has been logged and burned off the hills, a greatly increased
volume of water comes down the creeks at freshet-time and washes away the soil.
Comments and Recommendations.
The total dyking charges assessed against this District in 1946—$4.50 per acre—
would appear to be well beyond the power of the average farm operator to pay. In my
opinion the larger part of any new assessment should be spent on renewals and improvements, and to this end I recommend :■—
(1.)  That the  sum  of  $1,200  be  collected  annually and  be  paid  into the
Renewal Reserve Account;  and
(2.) That the present indebtedness be amortized over a period of forty years
and that $300 be paid annually to the Government, and, further, that
this token payment of $300 be accepted as full payment for the amount
due that year.
DEWDNEY DYKING DISTRICT.
(Hearings held in Municipal Hall, Mission, July 10th, 1946.)
Summary of Data.
Location.—The Dewdney Dyking District is located 3 miles east of Mission City,
around Hatzic Lake and Eastwood. It is traversed by the main line of the Canadian
Pacific Railway, the grade of the railway forming the dyke.
Description of Area.—The total area is approximately 3,362 acres. In 1924 the
lands were divided into five classifications, based upon benefits received and ability to
pay, as follows :■—■
" A " lands:   775 acres (lands difficult of drainage) .
" B " lands:   944 acres.
" C " lands:   1,030 acres.
" D " lands:   489 acres.
" E " lands:   118 acres (these pay maintenance charges only).
Practically all of this area is suitable for dairying, and a considerable portion of it
is adapted to intensive cultivation. There is good land in the Hatzic Island section and
around the lake-shore.
Description of Works.—As the grade of the railway formed the dyke, reclamation-
work in this District consisted merely of filling in trestles, constructing a flood-box for
gravity outflow, and the installation of pumping equipment for artificial drainage. The
works are in fair condition, but owing to their design require constant attention.
Ownership and Size of Holdings.—The lands are privately owned, and the farms
vary in size from small areas of raspberries, strawberries, and vegetables to 80- to
100-acre dairy-farms.
No Reverted Lands.—At the present time there is no land in the area which has
reverted to the Crown for non-payment of dyking assessments.
Land Sales.—Land sales in recent years have been numerous. Prices vary but
many farms have changed hands at prices from $200 per acre up. AA 136 THE DYKING AND DRAINAGE DISTRICTS.
Indebtedness to the Government.—This District operates under the " Drainage,
Dyking, and Development Act " and the " Dewdney Dyking District Relief Act." The
original debt of the District was $202,500, but in 1929 the " Dewdney Dyking District
Relief Act " authorized the expenditure of $150,000 in the purchase of the District's
outstanding debentures and $15,000 to discharge the liabilities of the Commissioners.
Although $164,875 was actually expended, this Act set the debt owing to the Government at $60,000 and ordered that the assets of the District, estimated at $48,000, be
liquidated. The insufficiency arising from the disposition of these assets was deemed
to be money loaned by the Government to the Commissioners, and accordingly an item
called " adjusted capital " was put through the books in the amount of $16,657.32.
The Act of 1929 also provided for the transfer of the administration of the District
from the Commissioners to the Inspector of Dykes.
The following statement shows the standing of the Dewdney Dyking District with
regard to its debt to the Government:—
Capital debt as at 1929	
Total.
Per Acre.
$60,000.00
"A" $28.03
" B "    21.03
" C "    14.02
" D "      7.01
Total debt as in 1933     58,086.17
Adjusted capital, 1939     16,657.32
Total debt as in 1939     76,657.32
Total debt as at December 31st, 1945  113,176.23*      " A "    53.38
" B " 40.04
" C " 26.69
" D "    13.35
* Interest added since 1939.
Dyking Assessments.—In 1932, when the annual capital payments were postponed,
the dyking assessments were as set forth in Table 30.
In 1946, with the capital levy restored after a postponement of thirteen years, the
dyking assessments are as set forth in Table 30.
Relative Productivity.—The lands in this area vary very much in productivity.
Generally speaking, the area is less productive than Matsqui, Sumas, or Chilliwack.
Some portions are highly productive.
Reserve for Additions and Replacements.—During the period of postponement of
the capital levy, slightly increased maintenance and operation charges have been levied
in this District. From the fund so accumulated, the sum of $20,184.92 has been
expended on additional pumping facilities. In addition, there is in reserve a sum of
approximately $7,000 which is being held in anticipation of expenditures for renewal
of the discharge-pipes under the C.P.R. grade which constitutes the dyke.
For estimates of future renewals, replacements, and additions see Table 29.
Special Factors.
1. Special Postponement of Payments.—Because there was no provision for postponement, a levy for repayment of capital was made in Dewdney in 1942, but a delegation from the District went to Victoria at that time and obtained a further postponement for a three-year period.
2. Effect of Logging off High Lands.—It is claimed that clearing and logging off
the higher lands above the dyked area has increased the run-off onto Hatzic Prairie.
Silt has filled in the channel under the bridge to within 18 inches of the bridge. Creeks
which formerly took several days to come up after a storm now rise overnight, carrying
away rocks, stumps, and soil. According to the evidence submitted, the pumps cannot
handle this water during a heavy rain. .DYKING, DRAINAGE,-AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 137
Comments and Recommendations.
This District is in a position to make some repayment annually on its indebtedness
and, in addition, should make additional provision for replacements and improvements.
To this end I recommend:—
(1.)  That the sum of $1,200 be collected annually and be paid into the Renewal
Reserve Account;   and
(2.)  That the present indebtedness be amortized over a period of forty years
and that $900 be paid annually to the Government, and, further, that this,
token payment of $900 when paid each year be accepted as full payment
for the amount due that year.
MAPLE RIDGE DRAINAGE DISTRICT. i
(Hearings held in Municipal Hall, Pitt Meadows, July 9th, 1946.)
Summary of Data.
Description of Area.—Within the low-land classification of the Maple Ridge Dyking
District there is a special drainage area consisting of 5,477.27 acres. This area, known
as Drainage No. 2, is divided into classifications as follows:—
" A " lands: 1,739.13 acres of land that receive 66 lineal feet of ditch per acre.
" B " lands:  2,904.29 acres of land that receive 33 lineal feet of ditch per acre.
" C " lands:   833.85 acres of land that receive an outlet only (in parcels of up
to 40 acres).
Description of Works.—In the Drainage District there are 41.66 miles of laterals,
constructed in 1925.
Reverted Lands.—By 1932, 232 acres had reverted to the Crown for non-payment
of dyking and drainage assessments; by 1939 the number of reverted acres totalled 967.
This figure had been reduced by 1945 to 440 acres.
Indebtedness to the Government.—The following is a statement of the standing of
the Maple Ridge Drainage District with regard to its debt to the Government:—
Borrowed  in   1925   for   construction   of Total- Per Acre.
drainage-works  $24,636.75
Total payments up to 1932     17,635.82
Total debt as in 1932     15,602.18
Total debt as at September 30th, 1945 ______    24,729.46*
"A"
$4.61
"B "
2.30
"C"
1.16
"A"
7.28
"B"
3.64
"C"
1.82
* Simple interest added since 1932.
The original cost was extended over a period of fifteen years by Order in Council
No. 973, dated September 5th, 1924.    This provided for repayment of the debt by 1940.
Drainage Assessments.—In 1932, when the annual payments were postponed, the
drainage assessments were as set forth in Table 30.
In 1946, with the capital levy restored after a postponement of thirteen years, the
drainage assessments are as set forth in Table 30.
Since all the drainage lands are within the Maple Ridge Dyking District, owners
of these lands pay the dyking charges in addition to the charges listed above.
Originally the drainage-works were to be maintained by a maintenance fund built
up by annual assessments comprising 20 per cent, of the capital assessments. This
amounted to $503 per year, but proved insufficient and was increased during the post- AA 138 THE DYKING AND DRAINAGE DISTRICTS.
ponement period to $1,370 per year. With the moneys so collected, the drainage-works
are now being reconditioned. At present there is more work to be done than can be
paid for out of this accumulated maintenance fund of approximately $9,000.
Production.—This is largely a dairy-cattle milk-producing area.
Relative Productivity.—It is a fair hay- and pasture-producing area. Productivity
is not the equal of Sumas and Chilliwack.
Estimate of Renewals, Replacements, and Additions required.—These are given as
a part of the dyking system (see Table 29).
Comments and Recommendations.
The drainage system, though good, has not been adequate for the result it was
intended to attain. Improvements are being made now and more will have to be made.
If this area is ever to reach its maximum production, the water-table will have to be
lowered considerably.
I doubt the ability of the District to meet more than a small part of its indebtedness for some years to come.
To this end I recommend:—
(1.) That the sum of $300 be collected annually and be paid into the Renewal
Reserve Account; and
(2.)  That the present indebtedness be amortized over a period of forty years
and that $200 be paid annually to the Government, and, further, that this
token payment of $200 when paid each year be accepted as full payment
for the amount due that year.
MAPLE RIDGE DYKING DISTRICT.
(Hearings held in Municipal Hall, Pitt Meadows, July 9th, 1946.)
Summary of Data.
Location.—The Maple Ridge Dyking District is located on the east bank of the
Pitt River, between the South Allouette and the Fraser. The main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway runs through the District.
Description of Area.—The total area is 8,382.31 acres, divided as follows: High
land, 2,623.46 acres;   low land, 5,758.85 acres.
A section along the Fraser River, about 1 mile in depth, is good land, but the
remainder is of less value, requiring considerable expenditure in drainage-works and
fertilization to make it reasonably productive. A large portion of the land cannot
be underdrained because there is little or no run-off.
Description of Works.—There is an earthen dyke 14.38 miles long, constructed to
2 feet above the 1894 high-water contour, and an interception ditch 1.5 miles in length.
Gravity drainage to the District lands is permitted by four flood-boxes with a
combined cross-sectional area of 392 square feet.
Artificial drainage is provided at high-water stages by five pumps whose combined capacity is 103,000 i.g. per minute against a head of 10 feet (see also Drainage
District).
Ownership and Size of Holdings.—The lands are privately owned, with the exception of the acreage reverted to the Government. The holdings vary from a few acres
used for small fruits to quite large dairy-farms.
Reverted Lands.—By 1932, 282 acres had reverted to the Crown for non-payment
of dyking assessments; by 1939 this figure had increased to 1,378 acres. Partly because
of the demand for peat-bogs, the total number of acres of reverted land still in the name
of the Crown was reduced by the year 1945 to 662. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 139
Land Sales.—Reverted lands in this area have been sold by the Crown at from
$15 to $30 per acre. Some land well located, which had reverted to the Canadian Farm
Loan Board, has sold at $135 to $150 per acre.
Indebtedness to the Government.—This District operates under the provisions of
the " Dyking Assessments Adjustment Act, 1905," with amendments. The following
statement indicates the standing of the Maple Ridge Dyking District with regard to
its debt to the Government:— Total. Per Acre.
Debt as in November, 1904  $221,981.96 $26.50
Debt as set by D.A.A. Act, 1905     127,396.00 15.20
Further advances up to 1932     100,923.94 	
Total payments up to 1932 (interest,
sinking fund, and deferred maintenance)      274,827.47 	
Total debt as in 1932    103,826.15   High      8.39
Low      14.22
Advances since 1932       23,463.67
Total debt as at September 30th, 1945     187,402.46* High     15.13
Low      25.65
* Simple interest added since 1932.
Dyking Assessments.—In 1932, when the annual payments were postponed, the
dyking assessments were as set forth in Table 30.
In 1946, with the capital levy restored after a postponement of thirteen years, the
dyking assessments are as set forth in Table 30.
Relative Productivity.—Only a portion of these lands are comparable to Sumas and
Chilliwack in productivity. A large percentage of the acreage requires constant study
and good farming practice in order to make it reasonably productive annually.
Estimate of Renewals, Replacements, and Additions required.—Heavy replacements, renewals, and improvements are required between now and 1987 (see Table 29).
Special Factors.—The C.P.R. does not contribute to dyking taxes because the railway was built before the dyke was constructed.
Maple Ridge Dyking District is the only district under the " Dyking Assessments
Adjustment Act " with more than one land classification. The effect of the high-land
and low-land classifications, which were set up when the District was first organized, is
that 21.18 per cent, of the District's debt and operational expense is charged to high
land, and 78.82 per cent, to low land. This is not equitable now that drainage services
are of prior importance in the area.    Some adjustments should be made.
Comments and Recommendations.
I doubt very much if this District will reach maximum production and consequent
ability to pay until the water can be maintained at a lower level during the winter and
spring months. Adequate drainage is essential, and so far, though it has been fair, it
has not been adequate. This factor, along with others, has been kept in mind when
considering the situation there. Improvements are essential.
To this end I recommend:—
(1.) That the sum of $2,400 be collected annually and be paid into the Renewal
Reserve Account;  and
(2.)  That the present indebtedness be amortized over a period of forty years
and that $1,200 be paid annually to the Government, and, further, that
this token payment of $1,200 when paid each year be accepted as full
payment of the amount due that year. AA 140 THE DYKING AND DRAINAGE DISTRICTS.
MATSQUI DRAINAGE DISTRICT.
(Hearings held in Municipal Hall, Mission, July 10th, 1946.)
Summary of Data.
Description of Area.—A total of 3,983.49 acres within the boundaries of the
Matsqui Dyking District have been organized into the Matsqui Drainage District.
These consist of a fringe of peat-land farthest from the river and the low-lying lands
which were difficult of drainage. Generally speaking, they comprise the poorer lands
of the Dyking District. They are classified for assessment purposes as follows: "A"
lands, 2,910.90 acres; "B" lands, 472.83 acres; "C" lands, 599.16 acres. There is
considerable discontentment over this division.
Description of Works.—The drainage-works were constructed from 1919 to 1921
at a total cost of $106,464.32.
Reverted Lands.—By 1932, 374 acres had reverted to the Crown for non-payment
of dyking and drainage assessments; by 1939 the total was 377. This figure was
decreased by resales, until by 1945 there were 208 acres remaining in the name of
the Crown.
Indebtedness to the Government.—The drainage-work was done under section 58
of the " Dyking Assessments Adjustment Act, 1905, Amendment Act, 1920." The
following statement shows the standing of the Matsqui Drainage District with regard
to its debt to the Government:— Total. Per Acre.
Original cost of works  $106,464.32 	
Government grant  .       60,000.00 	
District debt, 1921       54,131.78 	
.    Payments up to 1932       47,877.79 	
Total debt as at 1932._______._. ______    .42,452.60    "A" $12.87
" B "      6.44
" C "      3.22
Total debt as at September 30th, 1945       67,287.37* " A "    20.40
" B "    10.20
" C "      5.10
* Simple interest added to 1932.
It is noted that the original cost of these drainage-works far exceeded the estimates.
Drainage Assessments.—In 1932, when the annual payments were postponed, the
drainage assessments were as set out in Table 30.
In 1946, with the capital levy restored after a postponement of thirteen years,
the drainage assessments are as in Table 30.
Production.—Much of the land is used for pasture and hay, but some small fruits
are grown.
Comments and Recommendations.
The relative productivity of this area is not high. Some of the less productive
lands of the area are contained within it. The history of some of the farms in the area
is not encouraging. Some have been abandoned more than once. Some few farms are
highly productive.
To this end I recommend:—
(1.)  That the sum of $600 be collected annually and be paid into the Renewal
Reserve Account;  and
(2.)  That the present indebtedness be amortized over a period of forty years
and that $200 be paid annually to the Government, and, further, that this
token payment of $200 when paid each year be accepted as full payment
for the amount due that year. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 141
MATSQUI DYKING DISTRICT.
(Hearings held in Municipal Hall, Mission, July 10th, 1946.)
Summary of Data.
Location.—The Matsqui Dyking District is located on the south bank of the Fraser
River, about 35 miles from New Westminster and directly across the river from Mission
City. The main line of the Canadian National Railways, a branch of the Canadian
Pacific Railway, and the Chilliwack branch of the British Columbia Electric Railway
run through this District. The trunk highway to Sumas, Washington (one of the three
recognized ports of entry from the United States to the Coast district of British
Columbia), also passes through Matsqui.
Description of Area.—The total area is 10,174 acres, about 85 per cent, of which
consists of delta or alluvial deposits. This is heavy clay land, highly productive, except
for 2,500 acres which are low lying and difficult to drain. There is an overburden of
peat on about 15 per cent, of the total area, forming a fringe farthest from the river.
Description of Works.—There is an earthen dyke 7.2 miles in length, built to an
elevation 2 feet above the 1894 high-water contour.
The dyke crosses the main sloughs or natural waterways, and flood-boxes in these
permit of gravity drainage at low water, the opening being 264 square feet in cross-
sectional area.
Artificial drainage at high-water stages is provided by two pumping plants of two
units each, with a combined capacity of 55,000 i.g. per minute against a 20-foot head
and 78,000 i.g. per minute against a 10-foot head.
Ownership and Size of Holdings.—There are approximately 328 families in the
District. Some holdings are small, but most of them are family unit dairy-farms.
Recently, substantial holdings of raspberries have been set out on many of the dairy-
farms.
Reverted Lands.—-By 1932, 374 acres of land in the Dyking District had reverted
to the Crown for non-payment of dyking assessments; by 1939 this figure had reached
386 acres.    In 1945 there were still 232 acres of reverted land in the name of the Crown.
Indebtedness to the Government.—This District operates under the provisions of
the " Dyking Assessments Adjustment Act, 1905," with amendments, but application
of the Act was deferred in this case until 1908. The following statement indicates the
standing of the Matsqui Dyking District with regard to its debt to the Government:—
Total. Per Acre.
Debt as in November, 1904  $209,915.60 $20.68
Debt as set by D.A.A. Act, 1905  125,000.00 12.32
Further advances up to 1932  89,776.09             	
Total payments up to 1932 (interest, sinking
fund, and deferred maintenance)  231,333.77             	
Total debt as in 1932  119,223.27 11.75
Total debt as at September 30th, 1945  180,102.99* 17.75
* Simple interest added since 1932.
Dyking Assessments.—In 1932, when the annual payments were postponed, the
dyking assessments were as set out in Table 30.
In 1946, with the capital levy restored after a postponement of thirteen years, the
assessments are as set forth in Table 30.
Production.—A large portion of the acreage is devoted to dairying and the growing
of small fruits. The dairy-farmers grow silage crops and, in some cases, a small
amount of grain, but for the most part they feel it is not profitable to grow grain here.
Some canning-corn is also produced. The small-fruit plantings are quite recent, corresponding with the high prices for berries. AA 142 THE DYKING AND DRAINAGE DISTRICTS.
Relative Productivity.—In the opinion of Mr. Dixon, the average lands in Matsqui
are not as productive as the average lands at Sumas. There is, of course, considerable
variation within each of these districts. Generally speaking, the lands nearest the
river are highly productive and compare favourably with some of the best lands in the
Lower Fraser Valley.
Estimate of Renewals, Replacements, and Addition to Works.— (See Table 29.)
Special Factors.—There has been some seepage in the Matsqui District, particularly along the river-bank. This was very evident during the high water of 1936, and
again in 1946.    In 1946, 115 acres of pasture-land and 12 acres of crops were flooded.
River-bank erosion, which is increasing at the present time and constitutes a
serious problem, appears to be closely connected with seepage areas. In the past fifteen
years a total of $43,998.88 has been expended for river-bank protection along the Matsqui foreshore. Of that amount, the Provincial Government contributed $13,597.82, the
Dominion Government $8,368.52, the Canadian National Railways $5,999.85, and the
Matsqui Dyking District $17,032.67. River-bank erosion is accentuated by the velocity
of the river at Matsqui and by the soil-structure of the area.
Although a branch line of the Canadian Pacific Railway runs through the District,
the line was constructed before the dyke was built, and therefore the C.P.R. makes no
contribution to dyking costs or maintenance. The Canadian National Railways and
the British Columbia Electric Railway pay the same dyking charges per acre as are
paid by the farmers.
Summary of Brief Presented by Land-oivners.—1. The farmers feel that the
Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the British Columbia
Electric Railway receive benefits from the dyke for which they do not pay sufficient
compensation.
2. The timbered areas above the dyked lands are drained by the District, but do
not bear any portion of the cost.
3. The arterial highway from Abbotsford to Mission benefits from the Matsqui
dyke.
4. Farmers in the area are not receiving sufficient for their products, while labour
costs, living costs, and municipal taxes have greatly increased. Under the circumstances these farmers feel that they would have great difficulty in meeting a dyking
and drainage assessment which includes the capital levy with accrued interest.
5. They request that the capital charge be abolished, and that the maintenance
charge be set at $1.25 per acre.
In supporting their brief, some farmers testified that although they or their fathers
had farmed these lands for twenty-five or thirty years, they had just made a bare
living and had not been able to pay off their mortgages on the land.
Comments and Recommendations.
Generally speaking, this District is in a favoured position.    The dyked area is
quite large, being over 10,000 acres, and the acreage is high in relation to the miles of
dykes.    A difficult situation is found within the drainage area, but the District as a
whole is able to pay something on its indebtedness.
To this end I recommend:—
(1.)   That the sum of $2,100 be collected annually and be paid into the Renewal
Reserve Account;  and
(2.)   That the present indebtedness be amortized over a period of forty years
and that $2,200 be paid annually to the Government, and, further, that
this token payment of $2,200 when paid each year be accepted as full
payment for the amount due that year. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 143
PITT MEADOWS DYKING DISTRICT No. 1.
(Hearings held in Municipal Hall, Pitt Meadows, July 9th, 1946.)
Summary of Data.
Location.—The Pitt Meadows Dyking District No. 1 is located between the North
and South Allouette Rivers, 2 miles from the junction of the Allouette and the Pitt, and
2 miles from the Dewdney Trunk Road.
Description of Area.—The total area of the District is 1,174.78 acres. It lies
wholly below the high-water contour of 1894 and is completely surrounded by its dyke.
The land appears to be very inferior. Only a small part of it is cultivated, the
remainder being covered with hardhack.
Description of Works.—In this District there is an earthen dyke 6.08 miles in
length, built to an elevation 2 feet above the 1894 high-water contour.
Gravity drainage at low water is permitted through one flood-box with two openings, with a combined sectional area of 72 square feet.
Artificial drainage is provided by a pumping plant with a capacity of 12,000 i.g.
per minute against a 10-foot head. No pumping was undertaken in this District for
fifteen years until 1946, when the pump operated for three weeks.
Ownership.—Approximately 146 acres have been purchased by four individuals.
The balance is in the name of the Crown.
Reverted Lands.—By 1939, 1,151.30 acres, or the entire area with the exception
of that portion used for municipal roads, had reverted to the Crown for non-payment
of dyking assessments. In 1945 the reverted lands remaining unsold totalled 1,005
acres.
Indebtedness to the Government.—This District operates under the provisions of
the " Dyking Assessments Adjustment Act, 1905," with amendments. The following
statement indicates the standing of the Pitt Meadows Dyking District No. 1 with
regard to its debt to the Government:—
Total. Per Acre.
Debt in November, 1904  * $39.22
Debt as set by D.A.A. Act, 1905  $17,815.32 15.00
Further advances up to 1932  12,659.02             	
Total payments up to 1932 (interest, sinking
fund, and deferred maintenance)  37,843.21            	
Total debt as in 1932  12,540.90 10.67
Total debt as at September 30th, 1945  18,739.11+ 15.95
* Total debt at that time grouped with that of Pitt Meadows No. 2—combined debt was $88,873.11.
t Simple interest added since 1932.
Dyking Assessments.—In 1932, when the annual capital payments were postponed,
the dyking assessments were as set forth in Table 30.
In 1946, with the capital levy restored after a postponement of thirteen years,
the dyking assessments are as set forth in Table 30.
Production.—The land is now being used for rough pasture only. Some attempts
are being made to cultivate a small portion.
Relative Productivity.—It is not productive in its present state. No persons are
living on it full time.
Estimate of Renewals, Replacements, and Additions required.—Are set out in
Table 29.
Special Factors.—It was pointed out in the evidence that many attempts have been
made to cultivate this land, but without success. The suggestion was made that
Pitt Meadows Dyking District No. 1 should be allowed to revert to wild land or be
made into a game reserve. AA 144 THE DYKING AND DRAINAGE DISTRICTS.
Comments and Recommendation.
I hesitate to suggest that all of this land be put into a game reserve, but under
present conditions, and unless some one is prepared to spend at least $100,000 on it
for improvements to dykes, pumps, and land, I can see no alternative. The District is
non-productive and can pay nothing on its indebtedness.
PITT MEADOWS DYKING DISTRICT No. 2.
(Hearings held in Municipal Hall, Pitt Meadows, July 9th, 1946.)
Summary of Data.
Location.—The Pitt Meadows Dyking District No. 2 is located at the junction of
the Allouette and Pitt Rivers, on the north bank of the Allouette.
Description of Area.—The total area is 1,091.64 acres. The District is triangular
in shape, the rivers forming two sides and Sherridan Hill the third side. Because of
its relatively small size and triangular shape, this District has abnormally high dyking
maintenance charges.
The land is similar to that of the Coquitlam District and part of Maple Ridge.
It has been cultivated considerably during the past twenty years, with indifferent
success. There are about 800 acres of improved or partly improved land and 250
unimproved acres.
Description of Works.—The dyke is in the form of a loop, with both ends tied to
Sherridan Hill. It is an earthen dyke, built to an elevation 2 feet above the 1894 high-
water contour, and is 5.46 miles in length.
Gravity drainage at low water is permitted by a flood-box with two openings,
having a combined sectional area of 72 square feet.
Artificial drainage is provided by a pumping plant with a capacity of 24,000 i.g.
per minute.
Ownership and Size of Holdings.—Much of the land is divided into 5 and 10-acre
blocks.    There are at present about fifty-two owners or operators.
Reverted Lands.—By 1932 about 20 acres had reverted for non-payment of dyking
assessments. By 1939 the total number reverted had increased to 502 acres, which is
almost half of the area of the District. Some of these lands have been resold, decreasing the number of reverted acres by the year 1945 to 255.
Land Sales.—There have been a few sales by the Crown since March, 1946, but
only of small acreages. Prices on these and previous sales have ranged from $20 to
$35 per acre.
Indebtedness to the Government.—This District operates under the provisions of
the " Dyking Assessments Adjustment Act, 1905," with amendments. The following
statement indicates the standing of Pitt Meadows Dyking District No. 2 with regard
to its debt to the Government:— Total. Per Acre
Debt as in November, 1904  * $39.22
Debt as set by D.A.A. Act, 1905  $17,052.62 16.40
Further advances up to 1932     15,491.46
Total payments up to 1932 (interest, sinking
fund, and deferred maintenance)     46,261.06
Total' debt as in 1932       9,628.40 8.82
Advances since 1932       1,500.00
Total debt as at September 30th, 1945     16,164.38f 14.81
* Total debt at that time was grouped with that of Pitt Meadows No. 1—the combined debt was $88,873.11.
t Simple interest added since 1932. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 145
Dyking Assessments.—In 1932, when the annual capital payments were postponed,
the dyking assessments were as set forth in Table 30.
In 1946, with the capital levy restored after a postponement of thirteen years,
the dyking assessments are as set forth in Table 30.
Estimates of Renewals, Replacements, and Additions.—Are as set forth in Table 29.
Production.—There are a few medium-sized herds of dairy cows in the District.
For the most part, the dairy-farmers grow silage crops and buy their grain.    Some
truck-gardening is also carried on.
Relative Productivity.—The area is not prosperous, and never has been. Given
similar drainage, cultivation, and fertilization, it would be about the equal of Coquitlam
and Maple Ridge in productivity, and superior to the peat-lands at Matsqui.
Brief Presented by Land-owners.—A brief presented on behalf of the land-owners
of the District stressed the following points:—
(1.)  The dyke is in serious condition, and immediate repairs should be made.
(2.)  Additional pumping facilities are required to control the water-table,
which is too high.
(3.)  Attention should be given to drainage-ditches.
(4.)  Because of the small acreage, the annual maintenance expenses are heavy
on a per-acre basis.
(5.)  Before the District can pay more, the farmers will have to get better
production.    They cannot get better production under present conditions.
The farmers in this area feel that they should not have to bear the entire cost of
the dykes, as the benefits are not limited to the farmer.    Without the dykes, they claim,
there would be no roads in the valley.
Comments and Recommendations.
This District is not in a position to pay until such time as the land is more
productive.    Improvement in productivity is not entirely, but in part, a dyking and
drainage problem.    Improvements are essential.
To this end I recommend:—
(1.)  That the sum of $400 be collected annually and be paid into the renewal
Reserve Account;   and
(2.)  That the present indebtedness be amortized over a period of forty years
and that $100 be paid annually to the Government, and, further, that
this token payment of $100 when paid each year be accepted as full
payment for the amount due that year.
SUMAS DRAINAGE, DYKING, AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
(Hearings held in Municipal Hall, Chilliwack, July 11th, 1946.)
Summary of Data.
Location.—The Sumas Drainage, Dyking, and Development District is located
mainly in Sumas Municipality, with a small portion in Chilliwack Municipality. It includes the old Sumas Lake bottom and the adjoining lands that were subject to flooding
during the spring high water. The lands around the lake were settled and occupied
previous to the draining of the lake.
Description of Area.—The total area, excluding road and canal allowances, is
28,075 acres. ■ The lands are divided for assessment purposes into the following classifications, on the basis of elevation and frequency of flooding during the period of
record before reclamation:—
"A" lands (lake-bottom) :  9,837.76 acres.
" B " and " C " lands: 9,671.49 acres. AA 146 THE DYKING AND DRAINAGE DISTRICTS.
" D," " E," " F," and " G " lands:   6,249.63 acres.
"H" lands:  951.66 acres.
" I " lands:  487.05 acres.
" J " lands:  473.84 acres.
There are also 403.1 acres in Indian reserve, which pay maintenance charges only.
Description of Works.—The reclamation programme in this District involved
pumping the water out of Sumas Lake and converting the lake-bottom into an agricultural area. To accomplish this and to ensure that the lands so drained would be
protected from inundation in the future, it was necessary to construct very extensive
dyking and drainage works.
An artificial canal 4 miles in length, with dykes on either side high enough and
of sufficient sectional area to bar the Fraser freshet, leads the Vedder River direct to
the Fraser, by-passing Sumas Lake.
An interception canal, 10 miles in length, diverts the run-off waters from approximately 103 square miles of the surrounding territory (66 square miles of which are
in the State of Washington), whose natural sump was Sumas Lake. This canal is so
located as to provide gravity flow except during freshet periods, and is supplemented by
a dyke throughout its length to protect the lands below it from the maximum known
run-off.
There is an internal drainage system with many miles of main canals and laterals.
Adequate pumping facilities are provided.
Ownership and Size of Holdings.—The area is at present divided into approximately 1,300 holdings.
Around Yarrow and the Sumas Prairie Road the land has been very finely subdivided and is held in small lots used for berry-growing. The dairy-farms are mostly
in parcels of 40 acres and up.
No Reverted Lands.—There are no lands in the District which have reverted to
the Crown for non-payment of dyking assessments.
Land Sales.—Land in this area has been selling at as high as $250 an acre.
The high prices are being paid by people coming in from other parts to the milder
climate at the Coast, and by people wanting homes.
Indebtedness to the Government.—This District operates under the " Drainage,
Dyking, and Development Act" and the " Sumas Drainage, Dyking, and Development
District Act," and amending Acts.
The District was originally organized under the " Drainage, Dyking, and Irrigation Act," 1893, but little was done until 1917, when members of the Land Settlement
Board were appointed as Commissioners under the " Dyking, Drainage, and Development Act." The entire construction-work, with the exception of the internal drainage,
was completed by the Land Settlement Board by March, 1926, when the Inspector of
Dykes was appointed sole Commissioner in its stead.
The cost of the work far exceeded the original estimates. The total debt, including maintenance for the years 1921 to 1925, was $3,615,459.12. It was planned to
repay this amount to the Government through the sale of the lake area of approximately 12,000 acres, and by annual levy upon the lands which were privately owned.
Amendments to the "Sumas Drainage, Dyking, and Development Act" subsequently
set a definite construction charge per acre on the privately owned lands, and specified
that the insufficiency arising out of the sale of the lake area be charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Province. DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION.
AA 147
The following is a statement of the standing of the Sumas Drainage, Dyking, and
Development District with regard to its debt to the Government:—
Total. Per Acre.
Initial debt for construction and for maintenance, 1921-25   $3,615,459.12 	
Sale of lake area	
January 1st, 1928: Construction charges
were fixed at definite amounts per
acre by amendment to the " Sumas
Dyking, Drainage, and Development Act"—
" B," " C " lands	
" D," " E," " F," " G " lands	
" H " lands 	
" I " lands 	
" J " lands 	
January 1st, 1937: Construction charges
were set by further amendment to
the Act at these amounts—
" B," " C " lands	
" D," " E," " F," " G " lands	
" H " lands 	
" I " lands 	
" J " lands	
Total construction charge as at 1945*	
" B," " C " lands	
" D," " E," " F," " G " lands	
" H " lands 	
" I " lands 	
" J " lands	
720,159.32
674,753.58
$50.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
5.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
10.00
5.00
42.15
36.13
31.44
15.72
7.86
* Simple interest added since 1932.
For details of assessments see Table 30.
It should be noted that there is no capital charge against the "A" lands (lake-
bottom land).
There is also no capital charge against-the lands in the Indian reserve.
Under existing regulations the debt owed to the Government must be repaid by
January 1st, 1981, at 4% per cent, interest.
Dyking and Drainage Assessments.—The " Sumas Drainage, Dyking, and Development District Act Amendment Act, 1929," set up reduced construction charges per acre
as at the 1st day of January, 1928, stipulating that the annual levies of taxes on the
reduced construction charges should be made to provide interest at the rate of 5% per
cent, per annum on those amounts and to create a sinking fund sufficient to repay by
January 1st, 1969. Five annual levies were made on this basis before the Government
postponed the annual payments in 1932.
The " Interest Reduction (Crown Moneys) Act," 1936, reduced the rate of interest
from 5V2 per cent, to 4y2 per cent, as at June 1st, 1936, and the " Sumas Drainage,
Dyking, and Development District Act Amendment Act, 1936," further reduced the
construction charge as at January 1st, 1937. The accumulation of interest through
the thirteen-year postponement period has, of course, raised these construction charges
per acre considerably. AA 148
THE DYKING AND DRAINAGE DISTRICTS.
The following statement shows the comparative assessments for maintenance and
for capital repayment (including interest) in 1932 and 1946:—
Comparative Assessments, 1932 and 1946.
Classification of Land.
Maintenance
pee Acre.
Capital Levy
per Acre.
Total Charges
per Acre.
1932.    1    1946.
1
1
1932.    |    1946.
i
1932.    [    1946.
" A '•                                                                                 	
$
2.00
1.10
.55
.275
.275
.275
$
2.25
1.35
.675
.3375
.3375
.3375
1.10
$
3.10
1.86
1.24
.62
.31
$
2.39
2.05
1.78
.89
.44
$
2.00
4.20
2.41
1.515
.895
.585
$
2.25
" B " and " C "
3.74
" " G "_.                                                    	
2.725
••TT"
2.1175
" I "            	
1.2275
" J ".          	
.7775
1.10
Production.—This area is devoted mainly to dairy-farming. The dairymen grow
hay, fodder, and silage, but buy most of their concentrates.
There is some small-fruit growing, particularly in the Yarrow district, on small
acreages.
On the lake-bottom lands there are a number of hop-fields, and there is some acreage used for growing grass for dehydrating purposes.
Some mixed farming is carried on in both Upper and Lower Sumas.
Relative Productivity.—This District contains some of the most highly productive
land in the Lower Fraser Valley. A portion is gravelly and another portion is peaty,
but these areas are not very large. The land and productivity as a whole compare very
favourably with the highly productive Chilliwack and Delta areas.
Estimate of Reneivals, Replacements, and Additions to Works.— (See Table 29.)
Special Factors.
1. Dyke Benefit to Province as a Whole.—In the brief presented by the landowners, it was claimed that the Sumas dyke enabled the Government to build the
Trans-Canada Highway through that area at a lower cost than would have been possible
without the dyke, as it saved taking the road around Vedder Mountain and over several
railway crossings. In addition, draining Sumas Lake eliminated the mosquito pest in
the whole area. The farmers therefore argue that an additional part of the cost should
be borne by the Province.
2. Accrued Interest.—The brief also took exception to the addition to the total debt
of the interest which has accumulated during the thirteen-year postponement period.
Arrears on Assessments.—The arrears on capital payments and assessments as at
September 30th, 1931, was $117,586.04. By September 30th, 1946, this had been
reduced to $6,865.72, or in other words the District had been able, for various reasons,
to pay more than $7,300 a year on back assessments. This was during the period when
the capital assessments were postponed.
Thanks to Mr. Jones.—I wish to thank Mr. E. S. Jones, District Engineer, who
examined the works and advised on certain engineering aspects.
Comments and Recommendations.
This is one of the most fertile areas in the Lower Fraser Valley and compares
favourably with Chilliwack and the Delta. Economically it differs materially from
these other two districts in that maintenance and pumping costs are relatively much
greater and the original capital costs were over $125 per acre, as compared to $15 or
less in the other two.    The District has carried on with some success for about twenty- DYKING, DRAINAGE, AND IRRIGATION COMMISSION. AA 149
five years, but during that time, while the facilities have been maintained, no attempt
has been made to set up a Reserve Replacement Account. Some replacements are due
at or before 1972, and certain changes and improvements are necessary in the near
future.
To this end I recommend:—
(1.)  That the sum of $14,000 be collected annually and be paid into the
Renewal Reserve Account;   and
(2.)   That the present indebtedness be amortized over a period of forty years
and that $7,000 be paid annually to the Government, and, further, that
this token payment of $7,000 be accepted as full payment for the amount
due that year.
LADNER MUNICIPALITY.
(Information obtained from Mr. Smith, Municipal Clerk, on October 29th, 1946.)
This statement is included because of the many references to the Ladner District,
where all of the original dyking and nearly all of the original drainage costs have been
paid.
Dyking.
Capital charges on the dykes were paid up years ago.
There  are  tWO large   dykes :  Acres served. Miles of Dyke.
1892 dyke      8,000 5.511
1895 dyke   16,250 15.043
Totals   24,250 20.554
Maintenance and Replacements.—No maintenance or other charges are levied on
the lands under the 1892 dyke. There has been no levy on these lands for about twenty
years. Tidal action on this area is very slow. High tides and a big wind in December
might possibly do some damage, but over the years there has been very little work
required on the 1892 dyke.
There is a maintenance charge of 15 cents per acre on the land under the 1895
dyke; that is, on 16,250 acres. This is the dyke on the river side. From this levy a
total of $10,363.57 had been accumulated as at December 31st, 1945, which can be used
for maintenance or renewals.   There is no specific Renewal Reserve Fund.
On the gulf side there was a washout in 1934 which necessitated an expenditure
of about $10,000 for replacements.
The dyke is built to an elevation of about 6 feet. In a very high water in 1936
the water came up almost to the level of the dyke.
There is some seepage where there is quicksand, but not a great deal.
No lands have reverted for non-payment of taxes.
Original Con- Cost up
Dyke. struction Cost. to 1939.
1892 dyke  $31,812.00 $64,627.36
1895 dyke     66,112.79 222,061.36
$97,924.79 $286,688.72
Contributed by Dominion Government  $11,937.50
Contributed by Provincial Government  23,251.70
Contributed by Dominion and Provincial Governments
(relief labour)   1,884.75
Contributed by municipality  249,614.77
$286,688.72 AA 150
THE DYKING AND DRAINAGE DISTRICTS.
The original cost of the dykes to protect 24,250 acres was $97,924.79.    This is
just a fraction over $4 per acre.
Drainage Systems.
System.
Acres.
Construction
Cost.
Annual Levy.
Maintenance.
Capital.
River area, 1937	
East Delta, 1937	
Central drainage  (no pumps)
English Bluff (no pumps)	
Tilbury Island	
Totals	
8,435
10,643
14,217
1,389
423
$18,960.00
25,500.00
30,000.00
48,000.00
3,000.00
$1,773.79
5,049.07
1,881.47
407.71
345.75
$2,450.75
2,281.46
3,788.16
620.45
387.78
35,107
$125,460.00
The lands are assessed on the basis of a mill rate on the value of the land only,
without improvements.
There is a large area of bog in the East Delta (about 3,000 acres) which is valued
at about $15 per acre and taxed accordingly. The good lands are assessed on the basis
of an evaluation of about $115 per acre.
1945 Levies.
Drainage (maintenance and capital)   $14,091.75
Dykes (maintenance)       2,531.95
" * Capacity Gallons.
East Delta (three pumps—two obsolete), one pump  20,000
River area, one pump  20,000
Tilbury Island, one pump     3,000
There is no special fund for replacement of pumps. They have $7,000 put up by
the peat companies which they could use for pump replacement. As soon as the capital
debt is paid up on the drainage, they plan to replace the pumps.
While the cost per acre varies with each system, the over-all cost is nevertheless
quite low. The original cost of draining 35,107 acres was $125,460 or around $3.50
per acre.
Maintenance Equipment.-—They have two drag-lines, all paid for. When required,
these will be replaced out of the general funds secured through charging $35 per day
for use of the drag-line on each of the drainage schemes.
Comment.
This is a low-cost district, comparable only to Chilliwack, and not comparable in
any way to the districts in the terms of reference in so far as either maintenance or
original costs per acre are concerned.
VICTOHIA,  B.C. :
Priuted by Don McDiarmid, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty.
1947.
505-147-8884  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.bcsessional.1-0339791/manifest

Comment

Related Items