Monday, April 05, 2010 2:04 PM
The 411 page Productivity Commission document of mainly economic argument is almost too much for a citizen to comprehend. Economic argument must be based on reality when considering water availability and should be based on advice from experts skilled in the business of water management. The conclusions must be presented so that the citizen can appreiciate the problem and does not disagree with the recommendations. If some of the assumptions are incorrect then the whole report is suspect.
My concern is with the "Northern Victoria Irrigation Renewal Project Stage 2" in Victoria referred to on page 126. The funding is up to 1000 million dollars of taxpayers money and provision of this funding is subject to a due diligence assessment of the social, economic, environmental, financial, and technical aspects. The main objective of the project is to reduce the volume of water that is currently lost. The report at page 124, under the heading"Issues in Assessing Water Savings" states
"This leaves reduced evaporation as the only component that is clearly a saving from a catchment perspective." At page 142 the report states
"For reasons discussed above, the SRWUI program, in its present form, has the potential to be ineffective, inefficient and inequitable."
I consider that the Northern Victoria Irrigation Renewal Project is ineffective, inefficient and inequitable and I would like you to pursue this issue.
The Victorian government plans to spend the 1000 million dollars without having the funding secured. This is the road to disaster.Your attention to this problem is very time consuming so I would like you to get your staff to collect some of the key facts from me and form an opinion for your consideration. I live in Melbourne and my phone no. is 9830 4015
Yours faithfully, George Gordon