River environment manufactured

Professor Mike Young's lecture at Kyabram contained much spin but little fact, except showing the worst environment effects.

Prof Young's report is based on transferring at least 25 per cent of the allocations from irrigators to the environment in the Murray and its tributaries except the Darling.

The Murray ceases to be a normal flowing river at Swan Reach and from here to Lake Wellington and the Murray mouth is an estuarine `drain' with no particular flow directions.

Adelaide and the surrounding country require 270 Gl urban supply which is pumped from the Murray at Mannum.

To maintain flow in this section of the Murray drain during this drought, South Australia passes a minimum of 1000+ Gl at Mannum and up to 2001 the average flow exceeded 4000 Gl per year.

This constant flow of quality water allowed an uncontrolled irrigation area to develop by pumping from the Murray down to Lake Alexandrina.

To ensure this water remains uncontaminated SA has built a barrage across the mouth of the Murray.

For thousands of years the mouth of the Murray has been open and this section has acted as an estuary with the sea flowing into the lakes and lower Murray during periods of low flows and sea water being flushed out during periods of high flows.

This has kept the levels in the lakes and lower Murray at a reasonably constant level.

The call to remove water from Victorian and NSW irrigators and transferring this to the lower Murray to repair environmental damage is a ploy to cover the lack of irrigation water.

The environment is now a manufactured environment, not an estuary situation where the lakes and lower Murray would have been at their normal operating level.

If SA installed infrastructure to supply river water for Adelaide and the lower Murray irrigators the lakes could return to their normal estuarine condition and thus saving 700 Gl/year of river water lost through evaporation.

Bruce Bassed

Colbinabbin

Dam alternatives ignored

A recent report in the daily newspapers revealed that just under three years ago the Victorian Government commissioned a report into the possibility of building new dams at 10 different sites throughout the state, with the view to supplying more water to Melbourne.

The report contained locations, and detailed estimates of costs and storage capacities etc at each site.

Mr Holding has chosen to ignore this information, stating that new dams are not a good option because it "needs to rain" before they can be filled.

Instead the Brumby Government has decided the best option is to take more water from the already over committed Eildon Dam (now at 13 per cent) where they must believe it will rain far more than any other part of the state.

With climate change and lower rainfall now an accepted part of our future the Goulburn River System is already over committed for the irrigators in the Goulburn Valley, and from now on the pipeline to Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong will add extra strain to the system.

The government still refuses to have a thorough and independent audit of the estimated savings of the Foodbowl Modernisation Project which I (and a lot of others) believe are totally flawed.

The auditor-general has also criticised the Brumby Government for its lack of thorough planning, this is even before the usual start of the cost blowouts.

How many more times will the rivers in Gippsland need to flood before Mr Brumby realises and admits this would be the best option, to harness this water that has been so damaging before wasting into the ocean.

Could it be something to do with the fact that the present Victorian Government is somewhat dependent on preferences of a minor party to remain in power?

L. Underwood

Avenel

Majority opposes pipeline

Ross McPherson's letter (Country News, June 16), is headed `Numbers speak for themselves'.

Numbers don't speak for themselves; people speak for numbers.

What's the point in not telling the whole truth about this Goulburn Valley irrigation system upgrade?

The truth is that few of the many people I have spoken to oppose the need for an irrigation infrastructure upgrade.

What people almost universally oppose is the welding of the north-south pipeline proposal to the irrigation upgrade.

When Melbourne people understand that this water is coming out of the Goulburn River and know that it is part of the Murray-Darling Basin, they are horrified.

They understand that the Murray-Darling Basin is in dire straits and they want it fixed.

That cannot happen when Foodbowl Unlimited, Victorian Water Minister Tim Holding and Victorian Premier John Brumby insist on the north-south (Sugarloaf) pipeline; a high capital cost and high running cost project with more costs than benefits to northern Victorians and to Melburnians.

You see, the 30 per cent of water which is used in Melbourne by industry can be found under Melbourne's feet, at a cost of about $50 million.

Why then would the government spend $750 million on the bogus pipeline, including $300 million of Melbourne Water ratepayers' money?

As an agriculture, horticulture and land use consultant I am a Plug the Pipe campaigner on the basis that the northsouth pipeline simply doesn't make sense on sustainability and the triple bottom line.

Edwin Adamson

Merrijig

No such thing as created water

Barry Croke (Country News, June 23) is just another to evade the real issues.

In a letter purporting to be soberly factual he conflates motives to suit his bias.

There are so many more than Plug the Pipe activists who bitterly oppose the theft of water from the Goulburn ecosystem, for city use.

We do not and did not ever oppose the repair of the crumbling irrigation system.

We do refuse to buckle to a sort of moral blackmail, in that if we do not agree to the water theft, the repairs will not be made.

This was always designed to set the irrigators (still a minority) against the majority of our residents - which includes most of the area's farmers.

Neither we nor Plug the Pipe are in any way responsible for degrading water to a mere commodity, for trading to the highest bidder for speculative profit.

We strenuously object to the evasions of truth emanating from that evil triumvirate up in Spring St, not merely is it claimed that redirected water (which results from any rain in our area) to the city is "new" water - an impossible departure from the truth - but now, in television advertising "authorised by the Victorian Government" it has been claimed inter alia that this government is "creating" water

Mr Brumby, Mr Holding and whatever personal god they are using for such claimed miracles have become utter strangers to the plain simple truth.

Sid Hayward

Seymour