News 
 State News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Victoria's water in Canberra's sights 

Victoria's water in Canberra's sights

12 Jan, 2010 05:35 AM
VICTORIA'S Goulburn and Murray districts have been identified as ''high priority'' regions for returning water to the environment, just weeks before the north-south pipeline takes water away from those areas to Melbourne.

Farmers in the districts, along with those in the Campaspe, Kiewa and Loddon regions, were nominated by the Federal Government as the latest focus of the $3.1 billion buyback of irrigation water for the Murray-Darling river system.

The Government opened the new round of buybacks yesterday, as part of Canberra's staggered outlay on returning flows and environmental health to the river system.

On releasing the tender, Canberra discouraged farmers in other Victorian districts - including the Ovens, Wimmera-Mallee, Broken and Avoca - from applying, because it wants water from specific ''high priority'' regions, such as the Goulburn and Murray.

This preference was explained because of the ''number and significance of environmental assets within these catchments that need watering, or are expected to need watering in the future''.

Environmental assets in the region include the significant red gum community at Gunbower, which the Victorian Government recently protected within a new national park.

Canberra considers water from those districts to be more reliable and easier to transport than water from the discouraged districts.

The rush to get water back into the Goulburn and Murray regions sits awkwardly next to the Brumby Government's plan to take water out of those districts through the north-south pipeline.

The pipe is promised to carry 75 billion litres to Melbourne before December 31, and is expected to take its first water to Sugarloaf reservoir in coming weeks.

The Government has defended the pipe on the grounds it will take only a third of water saved in the food bowl modernisation project, with equal portions going to the environment and farmers. But different arrangements are in place for 2010, when much of the guaranteed 75 billion litres for Melbourne will not come from the food bowl project, but from various sources in northern Victoria.

Farmers and the environment will not get a matching 75 billion litres in 2010, and it is likely to be several years before the food bowl project is finished and delivering significant amounts of water to farmers and rivers.

Environment Victoria spokeswoman Kelly O'Shanassy said it was ironic Canberra had noticed the plight of the Goulburn river yet Victoria was about to pump more water out of it.

The State Government declined to comment yesterday.

Despite fears Victorian water rules would prevent the Commonwealth from buying back local water, a deal struck last year is allowing Canberra to breach purchasing limits in certain regions deemed unsuitable for long-term irrigation.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
All Australian coastal capital cities must consider desalinization as a key contributor to their main supply, and be prepared to pay for it. It is quit perverse when you think that the main expanding costal populations are drawing from agricultural and environmental reserves. While of course most of their water is being diverted, into storm water. The sewerage in most cases is also processed and disposed of into the ocean. Melbourne should consider, returning the equivalent in partially processed effluent to primary irrigation areas, Quid pro quo! There is an enormous waste of desirable nutrients, which will benefit and invigorate our rural landscapes. It will also assist in combating our ongoing climate variation.
Posted by graham dunton, 12/01/2010 12:36:28 PM, on Stock & Land
Here, here Graham! Why is this theology so hard for everyone to grasp? Return what you can. Better for Agriculture, Tourism (cleaner water), Fisheries and Environment. Real nation building to cope with environmental issues, waste and resource use. Smarter management, long term benefits for Cities, Agriculture and Environment. That's how I would like my Tax dollars spent! It will buy my vote, not hand outs.
Posted by Rebecca Dance, 13/01/2010 7:55:15 AM, on Stock & Land
Farmjing uses 70% of water resources, industry 20% and we use the other 10% As we try to feed an ever growing population our water resou8rces are going to be stressed to the limit. Why should I have to forego a bath or shower when the solution is to cut back farming use of water ? The water farmers return to the environment is so full of pesticides, fertilizers and other chemicale that it is unfit for human consumption.
Posted by jaimie, 13/01/2010 9:04:23 AM, on Stock & Land
If the Victorian Govt. can build a pipeline to bring water from the agricultural areas to Melbourne it can build a parallell pipeline to return an equal amount of treated effluent back to the agricultural areas. A great solution - no net water lost to the from the Murray/Goldburn, the agricultural areas get the nutrient from the effluent, pollution of the ocean from sewage effluent is reduced, saved water goes to environmental flows. One of the few times in this whole situation where everyone is a winner.
Posted by feathers, 13/01/2010 9:46:49 AM, on Stock & Land

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.

Most popular articles

Advertisement



Stock & Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...