The poll was reportedly taken by the Municipal Association of Victoria at its State Council meeting on May 8.

The association represents all 79 councils in the state. On July 5 last year, The Advertiser reported that, following a motion moved by Cr Greg Williams, Bendigo city council had decided to take a stand against the proposed pipeline. While applauding the much-needed investment of infrastructure upgrading in the Goulburn system, Bendigo councillors were of the opinion that viable water alternatives were available for both Melbourne and Ballarat.

Investment in the necessary dams to service these areas was deemed paramount.

Since that time, however, little has been reported on the council’s activity with respect to the divisive pipeline project. A concerned public remains unaware of the council’s current policies. How did the council vote in the association’s poll last month? Who represented Bendigo? The estimated amount of irrigation water savings remains a contentious issue.

Until the savings are seen and proved beyond doubt to be there, no water should leave the drought-affected food bowl.

Ideally, all saved water should initially be returned to debt-ridden, water-deprived farmers, who need guaranteed annual water security to productively grow crops, feed dairy herds and water orchards. Saved irrigation water must continue to stay within the depleted food bowl for whatever time is necessary. This irreplaceable food industry needs to regain its feet.

The political decision, therefore, to purloin 75,000 megalitres of invaluable water each year from the arid, drought-stricken food bowl, before proof of savings is seen or calculated, simply beggars belief.

As food-dependent Victorians, concerned families need to voice their support actively for experienced farmers and the continuing viability of the food bowl.

Think carefully about the waterless alternative!

ELAINE BROWN,

Kangaroo Flat