CLAIMS that a third of the water "savings" from the Foodbowl Modernisation Project will be returned to irrigators are farcical, says PETER HACON
The politicians and spin doctors involved with the north-south pipeline have hoodwinked the public into believing that evaporation and seepage are major components of "water losses" in the irrigation system.
They have juggled numbers and created a myth that all "water loss" is wasted and that any reduction must therefore be "savings".
Goulburn Murray Water recently released reports breaking down components of water loss in various channels.
The following figures are taken from a channel pod that GMW describes as "average".
They showed seepage contributes only 4.7 per cent to annual water losses, evaporation also 4.7 per cent and "system filling", 5.4 per cent.
The major contributor to "water loss," at 34.1 per cent, is leakage. It is the only component where a genuine volume of water savings can be made, but it's a maintenance issue, not a permanent fix.
Outfall water contributes 25.2 per cent. When water flows over a weir-like structure or outfall at the end of a channel system, it changes name from "irrigation water" to "outfall water".
To keep the "irrigation water" books balanced, the water accountant at GMW immediately enters the entire volume under the ledger "water loss". It is merely a book entry.
The water hasn't been lost or wasted. It still physically exists under the name "outfall water".
Irrigators pay GMW for licences to pump "outfall water", which is then used in agricultural production.
Without "outfall water", irrigators would probably return their licences, creating a massive shortfall in GMW's income.
Their only option to recoup this shortfall will be to lift the price of water for all irrigators.
The money being thrown at the irrigation system in order to justify the north-south pipeline is designed to eliminate "outfall water" and then call it "savings".
Eliminating outfall means less water for agriculture, and increased charges for irrigators.
Metering inaccuracy is also listed as a major component of "water losses", at 25.8 per cent.
Everyone in the irrigation industry has been aware that the dethridge water wheel is slightly inaccurate.
The average wheel in the Central Goulburn Irrigation Area measures 71 megalitres a year.
It is a simple, inexpensive and easily maintained device, with all water flowing through it going to agriculture.
For every 100 megalitres that flow through the wheels, GMW adds a paper entry of 7.5 megalitres to "water losses", because they claim it is 7.5 per cent inaccurate in the irrigator's favor.
The modernisation project wants to replace this wheel with a flow meter that costs $20,000.
It can be inaccurate by up to plus or minus 5 per cent.
From a production perspective, the best-case scenario means the Victorian Government will spend $20,000 to take 2.5 per cent of 71 megalitres from agriculture.
This equates to 1.7 megalitres of water currently worth $4000 on the open market.
They will then call it water savings. Kamikaze economics might be more appropriate.
The worst-case scenario is that irrigators will have to pay GMW more for 12.5 per cent less water, and receive no compensation.
The only purpose of the flow meter is to remove water from agriculture.
Under the old system, when the wheel was deemed to be out by 7.5 per cent for every 100 megalitres of water GMW had to allocate, they simply gave out 92.5 per cent and charged accordingly to meet budget.
The politicians and pipeline proponents claim that for every 100 megalitres put into the irrigation system, only 73 megalitres is measured out, classifying the remaining 27 per cent as "water loss", which they only ever quote as evaporation and seepage.
They claim that any reduction in "water loss" is a "saving' and that after spending $700 million on modernisation, their efficiency figure will increase to 85 per cent.
GMW figures on an "average" channel pod show over half of "water losses' are purely paper losses labelled "outfall" and "metering inaccuracy".
When you consider that the water is being used and paid for by irrigators, the adjusted efficiency figure before modernisation is already 86 per cent!
The Government is throwing hundreds of millions of dollars of public money, at a problem that doesn't exist, to save water that isn't wasted, in order to justify their dodgy decision.
The Government claim that a third of the savings created by modernisation will be returned to irrigators is farcical.
It is simply taking water from one hand and giving a third back with the other.
Their attitude that city people should get something in return for money spent in country areas is discriminatory. Rural and urban Victorians are being divided by the pipeline.
Perhaps the Brumby Government should spend the $300 million earmarked for the north-south pipeline on encouraging industry and business to the country.
Instead of trying to move the water to the population, perhaps the population might move to the water.
- Peter Hacon is a Tongala farmer.
