1 - July 27, 2010 7:37 am

Name:

Steven

Location:

Kialla

Comments:

QUOTE Comments: Steve,
Very comendable of you to save water for the farmers

Thank-you .

I realise that townies have other alternatives for water for flushing toilets and watering lawns t I know food produces do not have alternatives for water for food productions

2 - July 26, 2010 9:19 pm

Name:

John

Location:

Ardmona

Comments:

David, Victoria can be very thankful that that stupid shortsighted suggestion didn't get legs of just buying enough irrigation water rights to ensure 75 GL for Melbourne's lawns & gardens - ie 75X3 GL in recent years. You'll just have to be content with one third of the savings after all, or for next year, one third of Sweet-Fanny-Adams.

So David, what are your views on new dams, recycling, stormwater use etc which would provide much more than 75 GL, and unlike just taking someone else's water, would be real new water, unlike Holdings so called 'new water' from 'savings'.

3 - July 26, 2010 7:27 pm

Name:

David

Location:

Melbourne

Comments:

John,
I don't know any thing of the sort. Melbourne would buy 75 GL under the same operating conditions as the savings. After this year they get the same % given to irrigators including carry over. This is what the economists wanted with the money left going to fund government services.
As for irrigation efficiencies, dairying is the largest water user and has the most scope for on farm savings. Mr. Padman from your area thinks so BUT you need to upgade the iigation system to get high flows. http://padmanstops.com.au/results-from-fast-watering.html

4 - July 25, 2010 10:10 pm

Name:

John

Location:

Ardmona

Comments:

David, as you know, Melbourne-Water would have buy at least 200 GL of irrigation water rights to ensure it got 75 GL allocation in recent years, which is still equivalent to FOUR HUNDRED SQUARE KILOMETRES.

5 - July 25, 2010 10:01 pm

Name:

John

Location:

Ardmona

Comments:

David I'm quite happy to admit the reference I saw about London usage omitted the first digit, but 35-50% of Melbourne household use is still for lawns & gardens. But your arguments only talk about sending our water to Melbourne because you assume that your gardens and lawns should have priority over food production if water supply is limiting. What about recycling, new dams etc instead? Water use efficiency by horticulturalists in the GV is as good as you can get. So what are your suggestions for improving water-use efficiency of the other irrigation industries using flood irrigation? Or are you suggesting just to drop those industries eg dairying?