1 - March 11, 2010 7:16 pm

Name:

John

Location:

Ardmona

Comments:

David, you cannot use Eildon's working capacity of 3300 GL last century for this century's solutions. If the situation were the same as last century Melbourne's storages (& Bendigo's & Ballarat's) would also be 100% and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The GM-W water budget this season has 682.9 GL irrigation allocation and 73 GL channel losses for the Goulburn system and 909 GL irrigation allocation and 197 GL channel losses for the Murray system. Forget the $1 billion for stage 2 since it is probably just a pipe-dream at the moment. But the $1 billion for stage 1, I presume, is to be spent in the Goulburn & Murray systems in similar proportions to their allocations & channel losses. The Goulburn system, however, is expected to contribute 100% of Melbourne's demand for it's gardens & lawns. Do you seriously think you can get Melbourne's demand from savings from 73 GL channel losses in future years?

2 - March 11, 2010 6:14 pm

Name:

David

Location:

Melbourne

Comments:

John of Tongala
Please see response to Pandy of Tongala for the source of my information on Colyeambally irrigation delivery savings.

If I were an economic rationalist I would buy up the 100 %~trade out water now available around Kerang/Boort/Pyramid Hill and other land that should never have been irrigated because of salinity problems. Even if I paid double the going rate (Say $5,000/ML) I would get 180GL using the $900 m in Stage 1.

A recent economic report in the Age showed a 2 for 1 return on the $2 bn on Stages 1 & 2. I note P the P did not report this.
If there were no water going to Melbourne would you back the renewal scheme?
Even P the Pipers I have spoken to think it is fine to upgrade the irrigation system.

3 - March 11, 2010 6:09 pm

Name:

David

Location:

Melbourne

Comments:

John of Tongala. 75 GL against 683 GL is not insignifiacnt (What 11%?) but you assume it has been taken out of irrigation share. Not all the volume in Eildon is for irrigatiors. Next you say the savings so far are only 73GL and earlier that $200 m has been spent or 10%`of the $2 bn earmarked.
Anyway my comment about 75GL being 2.25%`of Eildon's volume was based on your figure of a total Eildon capacity.
One souce I do read is Rob Rendell no light weight in the irigation scene. figure 4.1 of his paper to the dairy industry illustrates my point that the pipeline to Melbourne is small bickies in the overall picture. Search "report for Australian dairy industry key issues".
I have spoken to irigation farmers and their siutation is not nice to put it mildly but I recon using the NS pipeline as the focus for frustrations will not solve the problem even if it were plugged.

4 - March 11, 2010 5:44 pm

Name:

David

Location:

Melbourne

Comments:

Panky of Tongala. I read the Colyeambaly report and noted the very low delivery volume. So becuse a lot of loss is fixed or difficult to reduce proportional to delivery you get high loss % (not incresed loss volume). So if you reduce loss volume by carying out works you do so for all years. Not as much saved in low delivery years as authorities close some channels and run pols low when they can. My irrigation efficencies for Colyeambaly came from a report by Mr Murray Smith ex-CEO Coleambally Irrigation. Search "peer review of nayer paper" to see.

5 - March 6, 2010 8:54 am

Name:

Danny

Location:

Numurkah

Comments:

Fortunately or unfortunately the pipeline has gone in, and absolutely we must keep our eye on the Victorian Government.

But at the moment the Federal Government are holding back on the on farm savings grant and have also released papers saying that we in Northern Victoria are more likely than anywhere else to loose up to 20%-30% of our water right without any compensation, or trade off .
The amount of water they are talking about is absolutely huge .If stainable irrigated agriculture is to remain in Northern Victoria all of Victorian farmers must be ready, and ready NOW!!!!!