If the Brumby Government Ministers like Jacinta Allan would get over their ideological opposition to new dams such as on the Mitchell River in Gippsland East, Melbourne would have true water security. Plug The Pipe protestors are spot on, and are not 'anti-Bendigo.' Mrs Allan is 'anti-Victoria' because country or city, we all need a government that provides water security. Sadly we don't that in Victoria at present, and the desalination plant at Kilcunda (Wonthaggi area) is a waste of money when we have water rushing out to sea in Gippsland East.

Dear Editor, This might be of interest to you. And I would also like to thank you for putting in the rally information this week for our Friday rally.

We will have only one bus going at this stage, as people either did not have enough time to organise themselves or they are working and cant get time off.

The paper is basically the only way for the community to advertise actions by governments that will have an impact upon them. The paper has an important community function and this is to inform people of matters that will have an impact upon them.

This is a responsibility that they must take seriously and not make their own judgments on whether the impacts are local or not.

Let the people decide by informing them in the first instance.

The taking of water from north of the divide is going to have an impact upon this area. This cannot be ignored or argued, as anything that happens to a river upstream will have an impact downstream.

You only have to look at Cubby Station and Queensland extraction mentioned in this weeks Weekly Times to understand this. The removal of 75GL or more (as per Freedom of Information Act by Wendy Lovell=150GL in a Stage 3) during a time when the rivers are still over-allocated and the drought is deepening and climate change has grabbed hold, will have a physical and measurable impact.

The Goulburn is a major tributary to the Murray River, taking water out of it has to have an effect. The Foodbowl Modernisation Project has not been done, the water savings are not there, so where do people think the water is going to come from?

Melbourne is proposing to take 75GL in 2010 no matter what and this water is not shared it goes straight to the Sugarloaf Reservoir for Melbourne. It will be taken off someone else, the environment and irrigators and towns. This extraction of 75GL (minimum) is in addition to that water being

borrowed

for the Goldfields pipeline to Bendigo and Ballarat.

Last year they had to

borrow

10GL to put into the pipe otherwise there would have been no water in it. This year they are going to have to do the same thing. Where is this water being

borrowed

from?

The environment, irrigators and water quality reserves for the Goulburn River.

How much can one river give up?

How mush in total is being extracted from the Goulburn River and how much more is proposed to be extracted?

This question must be asked because a pipeline here, a pipeline there and there when added together (incremental actions!) must surely have an effect somewhere and on something.

The only way that people will understand what is happening is through information in the media. The government of course will say there will be no impact because they want/will to take water to Melbourne via this ridiculous pipeline. During Henry Boltes era the Eildon dam was enlarged and this was so that irrigators would be assured of water in a drought, and the assurance was given that no water would be taken from north of the divide to the south.

This and Labors promise before the election not to take water from north of the divide is about to be broken. This is not a little event this is yet again another government broken promise (as is the return of our passenger train by 2004).

It is not acceptable for people, especially governments to make promises of such huge natures (that will have massive impacts) during elections and any other time without any intention of keeping them. This is not how a public authority is to behave.

Mr Brumby and Mr Holding must be held accountable at the next election. They and their party must be voted out, in no uncertain terms. Their government has been in power for 3 terms now and is just starting to rush through pipelines, desal plants, new trams and trains for Melbourne without fully assessing the impacts upon rural Victorians.

Victoria does not exist for the benefit of Melbourne and metropolitan areas or does it?

Is it acceptable for Melbourne to grow in an ecologically unsustainable manner?

Should there be a

cap

on the growth allowed in Melbourne?

They say that if we dont have water we should move and go elsewhere. Isnt this the same for Melbournians? No water, no growth otherwise someone or something, like the silent environment will suffer.

You can only take so much! Look at the Coorong, a Ramsar listed wetland that is dying because of greedy irrigators and greedy governments and cities. Why should the environment suffer? It is we who have casue this problem, not the environment, we just take take take, something has to give in the end.

We must listen to Dave Patton in South Australia, Mike Young and other people who are trying to balance the system so that everyone has a fair go not just ego centric humans (States and others). Who says that we must survive above all else?

This trip to Bendigo is more than just a rally against a pipeline, it is a rally against government band aide solutions, against governments that do nothing until it is too late and then they are prepared to do the wrong thing, the unacceptable thing, and still avoid addressing the real issues of over-allocation and unsustainable and ecologically damaging growth.

This is why it was imperative that this paper help us. Support last week would have been most welcome. A missed opportunity to make a difference.

Dont worry though, it only takes a few people to carry a message to the government and we lucky few are willing and able. I do wish though that more people cared, but how can you care if you arent informed?

Regards,

Maria Riedl

The big, long term plan. 50 million population by 2050. Foreign “457’’ workers to cut and control wages. No private ownership of farms or small businesses.

Howard, Costello, and Turnbull, started the move to override our constitution - avoiding a referendum by using the corporations’ powers. Local and state water institutions have already been corporatised ready for the big move.

Australians believed our Federal Constitution was our protection. The responsibility for water management resides with the States as section 100 of the Australian Federal Constitution states: The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation.

From The Age (December 24, 2006) Costello seeks control of rivers, water: “I think we have to reinvent federalism,’’ Mr Costello told The Sunday Age.

“The current federal model does not work well.

“We ought to have a (national) system which allocates water to the most efficient and highest-value use and that’s where Commonwealth leadership can be absolutely essential.’’