So, after 150-plus years we locals have got it wrong.

Now the new managers are going to show us what we were doing wrong.

They tell us that we can still have jobs and they will manage it better.

Well I, like everyone, have seen what locking up forest areas does. We won't forget Black Saturday.

Shayne Moor

Barmah

Abolition of one desk a single blunder

Reference a recent comment by a rural columnist and her implication that the fraudulent sale of wheat to the then government of Iraq was a valid reason to abolish single desk wheat marketing.

If a bank manager defrauds a customer of the bank, does that mean that banking should be abolished?

The single desk is a very successful marketing tool and is in no way related to the fraudulent sale of wheat to the then government of Iraq.

The single desk is the underlying reason for the great success of the Australian wheat industry in the last 60-odd years.

Single desk marketing was developed by Australian farmers, agronomists and plant breeders to cope with our erratic rainfall and distance from markets.

Under the stabilising provisions of the single desk, Australia developed the best and much sought-after milling wheat in the world.

It beat the heavily subsidised American wheat to sensitive markets.

It is ironic that the Liberal Party is crowing about its role in regulating Australian banking in a way that avoided the worst features of American banking.

Apparently regulations are good for banking but not for the wheat industry.

This unbelievable blunder will not take long to become apparent.

Within 10 to 15 years, Australia, an island continent, will need to import wheat for human consumption and stock feed.

Kevin O'Neill

Tocumwal

Holding approved pipe before plan

The north-south pipeline is destined to be the greatest government stuff-up of our time.

Water Minister Tim Holding is claiming that his government never promised the north-south pipeline would deliver 75 billion litres of water to Melbourne in 2011.

What a blatant lie. The government brochure released when the pipeline project was launched claimed it would deliver 75 billion litres of water each year starting in 2010.

A 28-page document released in 2007 entitled The next stage in the Government's water plan, promised the pipeline would "transfer an average of 75 billion litres per annum and will begin delivering this water in the first half of 2010".

In March The Age reported that the pipeline was expected to deliver barely half of the promised 75 billion litres.

Water officials now say that the project will carry a stigma because of unrealistic political expectations.

Last week the general manager of the Office of Water, David Downie, swore at VCAT that the basic assumptions about water savings are now proved to be wrong and that Mr Holding approved the pipe before preparing a business plan.

Blind Freddy could have told them that Lake Eildon is empty and never had nor will have any spare water to send to Melbourne.

How can Brumby get away with this? Victorians have spent almost $1 billion and face a 60 per cent increase in annual water bills to pay for this stuff-up.

No wonder they are putting the pipe out of sight underground.

Ron Irwin

Benalla

Draft proposal is full of contradictions

A draft proposal called Northern Victoria Integrated Irrigation Modernisation Project is being circulated.

It states this proposal is prepared by the community of the Goulburn Murray region of Northern Victoria.

This is wrong: the only stakeholders with input are former members of the FMP Steering Committee plus the NVIRP's Community Modernisation Committee.

There is no author to the paper nor any organisation who authorised its release.

The good news is printed first; such as GMID's 11 000 customers can take full advantage of the modernised service and achieve more productive, sustainable and profitable farm businesses.

Where feasible every farmer in the project area will have the option of a connection to the modernised backbone.

These statements are contradicted by the following statements:

1. Water savings will be maximised by consolidating irrigation farming around the efficient modernised backbone.

2. Government will focus investment of modernisation funds to the more productive and environmentally sustainable areas.

3. Farms located off the backbone on inefficient or under-utilised spur channels will be provided with financial incentives to relocate their farm businesses.

4. The cost of operating, maintaining and replacing the project infrastructure will be funded by GMID farmers.

There is no indication of where unproductive areas will be retired or which channels will be shut down.

The tables show that 250 Gl of savings and 350 Gl of government water purchases will be removed from the district each year.

To this we must add the Shepparton and CG 1 to 4 savings (69 Gl) Living Murray 27 Gl and water sold under the 4 per cent cap 64 Gl.

All which totals 768 Gl to be removed from the GMID.

This represents 50 per cent of the present gravity irrigation allocation in the GMID.

The irrigators' share of savings from the FMP modernisation is less than the forecast reduction in allocation due to climate chance. Therefore the benefits to irrigators are nil.

Irrigators are left wondering how, at what cost and where the completion of modernisation in the GMID will leave them.

Bruce M. Bassed

Colbinabbin